NationStates Jolt Archive

Here are articles from 2006 that indicates China is drilling for oil in the Florida straights, just 50 miles from the coast of Florida. So why is it the US isn't drilling off the coast of Florida, California, in the Dakotas or in Anwr?

The oil that is in Anwr and the shale oil in the Dakotas are each larger than the oil in Saudi Arabia. So, why are we paying OPEC outrageous prices for a barrel of oil when we can be drilling our own?

We should drill our own oil AND develop alternative energy sources such as nuclear and wind power. Why are we not doing that?

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19479
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/05/08/Worldandnation/Cuba_seeks_oil_near_K.shtml

From what I hear, the oil extraction from our own land would cost us far more than just buying from others.

I can't answer your question on alternative fuels though...

Considering how much US oil imports have fallen year over year, our reliance on domestic oil sources has increased considerably compared to only a few years ago. The market has done an excellent job of achieving improved energy security, and with a wise government energy policy we will be able to leverage these gains for even further progress.

It's cheaper to exploit foreign markets for the oil they produce than go through the process of trying to exploit the resources in the US.

Ultimately, I feel the reason the US and Canada aren't looking for new sources of energy is because of the strength of the oil lobby. It's not in the best interests of those in power to turn down the massive support they receive from the oil barons to look for alternatives. If Someone is paying you to have your country keep buying their product chances are you'll ignore the greater good. In the words of Lewis Black: "If big oil gave anybody in this room 31 million bucks, you'd be THRILLED to be big oil's bitch."

Click Stand;13749229']From what I hear, the oil extraction from our own land would cost us far more than just buying from others.

I can't answer your question on alternative fuels though...

With the price of oil over $100 a barrel it would be less expensive to drill our own. Today oil closed at over $138 a barrel (http://money.cnn.com/) and the stock market went down almost 400 points because of it.

Considering how much US oil imports have fallen year over year, our reliance on domestic oil sources has increased considerably compared to only a few years ago. The market has done an excellent job of achieving improved energy security, and with a wise government energy policy we will be able to leverage these gains for even further progress.

So, why aren't we drilling more and pumping that money back into our own economy?

Gee... could it be that we would exhaust all our oil in 4 years at current consumption rates if we just drilled and used our own stuff?

Edit: By the way, why are you complaining about an issue that is two years old and done in CUBA'S territorial waters?

The worst part about China's drilling, is that it is "slant" drill,ing. They are apparently from what I have heard, drilling in at an angle to hit oil reserves in US territorial waters. They aren't actually in US waters though.

I saw an expert talking on some show about how getting shale oil out of california and the Dakotas would be relativly cheap but it would take like 10 years. He talked about drilling one hole every mile in a grid pattern. Then putting super heaters down the drilled holes. After 10 or so years, the shale becomes oil and the holes become wells.

To expand upon what I was previously saying, US oil imports are down 1.5 million barrels per day compared to last year. That is absolutely gigantic...it's literally equal to the entire growth in world oil demand over the past year.

Gee... could it be that we would exhaust all our oil in 4 years at current consumption rates if we just drilled and used our own stuff?

No. If we can't exhaust Saudi Arabian oil in just four years how could you expect to exhaust twice that amount in four years? Also, in my OP I also said we need to develop alternative energy sources like nuclear power, wind power, clean coal, etc. and reduce our dependency on oil.

That is good, but we need to farther and look outside of OPEC.

Russia needs an economic boost following communsim. They have oil. We need oil. They sell it to us at below market rates and rake in profits(all they have to do is undercut market rates by 20 or 30 bucks per barrel). We get it for less and prices for us drop. OPEC is forced to keep raising prices to keep their profits. They drive themselves into the ground.

I realize my plan is flawed and probably wouldn't help, but at least I am thinking out side of the box

maybe because for the cost of drilling for the oil, which would run out, we could build a lot of solar panels in the desert and power most of the western states with them?


Not that we'd ever do that, but we should.

So, why aren't we drilling more and pumping that money back into our own economy?

Mostly restrictions. A lot of coastal states simply don't want drilling off their coasts for various reasons and have blocked it at either the state or the federal level.

To expand upon what I was previously saying, US oil imports are down 1.5 million barrels per day compared to last year. That is absolutely gigantic...it's literally equal to the entire growth in world oil demand over the past year.

If that is true, and I have my doubts, why is the price of oil so high and still going up? They are predicting $150 a barrel by July 4th. :(

Mostly restrictions. A lot of coastal states simply don't want drilling off their coasts for various reasons and have blocked it at either the state or the federal level.

Sounds like time for another Boston Tea Party. Damn left wing environmental idiots. Louisiana has a lot of oil rigs off their coast and a booming fishing industry.

Considering how much US oil imports have fallen year over year, our reliance on domestic oil sources has increased considerably compared to only a few years ago. The market has done an excellent job of achieving improved energy security, and with a wise government energy policy we will be able to leverage these gains for even further progress.

Really? I did not know this. Do you have a source for this? Not that I don't believe you, I just want to have evidence when I tell someone.

I think the problem a lot of people make is confusing reserves and production rates; the US might have X number of barrels of oil in its reserves, but we can't produce that oil at any rate we please. The rate of oil production is linked to the pressurization of the field and available recovery techniques.

Basically, you could have a field with 500 billion barrels in it but if the pressurization and enhanced recovery techniques are only viable up to a production rate of 5 million barrels per day, that's all you're going to get barring changes in one of those variables.

This is why older oil fields used to hit their peak and decline once 50% or so (even less in some unfortunate cases) of the recoverable reserves were depleted. Technology has enhanced that recovery rate considerably, allowing more to be produced without negatively impacting production; however, there are often side effects in some cases such as a more rapid decline once the threshold level has been hit.

Really? I did not know this. Do you have a source for this? Not that I don't believe you, I just want to have evidence when I tell someone.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/txt/wpsr.txt

Scroll down to "Total Net Imports" in the first part of the file. It shows year-over-year decline of 11.5% (roughly 1.5 million bpd), and YTD decline of 7.6%(934,000 bpd). Now, mind you some of this is due to reduced demand, but another significant chunk is due to new supply...both are good signs for US energy security.

The world oil demand number comes from OPEC.

No. If we can't exhaust Saudi Arabian oil in just four years how could you expect to exhaust twice that amount in four years?
Let us do the math and I'll show you.

The US has 21 billion barrels of oil in it's proven reserves.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_in_order
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html)
With current production, we expect to exhaust them in 12 years.

The US consumes (in 2005) 20.8 million barrels of oil a day.
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html)

Now, divide 21,000,000,000 by 20,800,000 and you get 1 009.61538 days or 2.76712329 years (I was a bit off). Sorry Charlie, drilling ain't going to work.

Also, in my OP I also said we need to develop alternative energy sources like nuclear power, wind power, clean coal, etc. and reduce our dependency on oil.
Can you get it done in less than three years?

Russia needs an economic boost following communsim. They have oil. We need oil.
Russia doesn't have all that much oil. They have gas, but someone's already using that.

They sell it to us at below market rates and rake in profits(all they have to do is undercut market rates by 20 or 30 bucks per barrel). We get it for less and prices for us drop.
Why in hell's name would they do that?

I realize my plan is flawed and probably wouldn't help, but at least I am thinking out side of the box
Yeah, but there's still the box of the realistic, which it's probably best not venture out of too far.

Can you get it done in less than three years?

If we put our minds to doing it. How long did it take for the Manhatten Project and how much has technology advanced since then? Hell yes we could do it if we committed to it.

If we put our minds to doing it. How long did it take for the Manhatten Project and how much has technology advanced since then? Hell yes we could do it if we committed to it.
:rolleyes:

That is good, but we need to farther and look outside of OPEC.

Russia needs an economic boost following communsim. They have oil. We need oil. They sell it to us at below market rates and rake in profits(all they have to do is undercut market rates by 20 or 30 bucks per barrel). We get it for less and prices for us drop. OPEC is forced to keep raising prices to keep their profits. They drive themselves into the ground.

I realize my plan is flawed and probably wouldn't help, but at least I am thinking out side of the box

Well, for one thing, they've already got a big market in Europe/central Asia and don't need to sell heavily to the US. Secondly, communism collapsed in what, '91? ... they hardly need an economic boost "following" communism 15-20 years later. Third, why would they sell it at below market rate when they can sell it at market rate?

:rolleyes:

No faith in our ability to do it? :( I'm an optimist not a pessimist. :)

If we put our minds to doing it. How long did it take for the Manhatten Project and how much has technology advanced since then? Hell yes we could do it if we committed to it.

Trying to develop a complete replacement for oil in three years would be like trying to invent the ICBM instead of the atomic bomb in the Manhattan project.

We obviously need research into alternative fuels but it's a long term solution and in the short term we need to focus on more efficient technology.

We obviously need research into alternative fuels but it's a long term solution and in the short term we need to focus on more efficient technology.

Like nuclear power? Done, but the environtmental waccos don't want us to do it because...:rolleyes:

Like wind power? Done, but the environtemental waccos don't want us to do it because...:rolleyes:

Like clean coal? Done, but...:rolleyes:

Russia doesn't have all that much oil. They have gas, but someone's already using that.


Why in hell's name would they do that?


Yeah, but there's still the box of the realistic, which it's probably best not venture out of too far.

I said there were flaws..no need to knitpick.

Why would they do that? Turn a quick buck and piss the world off.

Russia doesn't have all that much oil. They have gas, but someone's already using that.


Why in hell's name would they do that?


Yeah, but there's still the box of the realistic, which it's probably best not venture out of too far.

I said there were flaws..no need to knitpick.

Why would they do that? Turn a quick buck and piss the world off.

No faith in our ability to do it? :( I'm an optimist not a pessimist. :)
The Manhattan Project produced THREE atomic bombs and was the culmination not only of research that had already taken place, but was something that had only existed in research labs. You are talking about development on a nationwide scale for every man, woman, and child in the US and replacement of something that is the current basis for a great deal of modern life.

Yeah, I think that three years as a deadline is more than a little bit idiotic. That's realism.

If we put our minds to doing it. How long did it take for the Manhatten Project and how much has technology advanced since then? Hell yes we could do it if we committed to it.

Uh, no, no we could not. We're not talking about technological development here. We're talking about huge amounts of infrastructure covering the entire COUNTRY. Literally hundreds--if not thousands--of nuclear power plants all across the country alone would take several years, nevermind what would be necessary to get the power to everyone.

Realistically speaking? We'd need about TEN years to get the new infrastructure all in place.

Yeah, I think that three years as a deadline is more than a little bit idiotic. That's realism.

The research on alternative energy sources has been done. That isn't to say other and better alternatives don't exist and shouldn't be explored. However, three years is not needed for research into those sources. The infrastructure might not be complete in three years but a hell of a lot of windmills could be built in that time frame and quite a bit of construction of nuclear power and clean coal generating plants could be done in three years. The problem is and continues to be sitting back and not doing anything. Both political parties are responsible for that. They are to busy trying to get re-elected instead of doing the job they were elected to do. :mad:

The research on alternative energy sources has been done. That isn't to say other and better alternatives don't exist and shouldn't be explored. However, three years is not needed for research into those sources. The infrastructure might not be complete in three years but a hell of a lot of windmills could be built in that time frame and quite a bit of construction of nuclear power and clean coal generating plants could be done in three years. The problem is and continues to be sitting back and not doing anything. Both political parties are responsible for that. They are to busy trying to get re-elected instead of doing the job they were elected to do. :mad:

Now that is true to an extent. We are definitely sitting on our laurels when we need to be getting things done.

Unfortunately it's just not that easy, as much as we'd like it to be.

Uh, no, no we could not. We're not talking about technological development here. We're talking about huge amounts of infrastructure covering the entire COUNTRY. Literally hundreds--if not thousands--of nuclear power plants all across the country alone would take several years, nevermind what would be necessary to get the power to everyone.

Realistically speaking? We'd need about TEN years to get the new infrastructure all in place.

You are correct. We do have the technology but not the infrastructure. However, if we don't get off our collective asses and start building that infrastructure we will never get off the Oil.

So, we need to start building nuclear, wind, and clean coal power stations, continue research into other clean energy sources, AND DRILL FOR OIL so we can have a reasonably priced source of energy until we get the alternative sources buitl.

Unfortunately it's just not that easy, as much as we'd like it to be.

Why not? Because of the obstructionist political idealogy of the left? Because of the unwillingness of the right to act? Hell, people want action and all the politicians know how to do is politic. No! It's because the people won't throw the politicians who won't do what they were hired to do out of office. :mad:

Why not? Because of the obstructionist political idealogy of the left? Because of the unwillingness of the right to act? Hell, people want action and all the politicians know how to do is politic. No! It's because the people won't throw the politicians who won't do what they were hired to do out of office. :mad:

Actually, it's mainly to do with a bit of ignorance from the constituency of the Congresspeople as well as conflicting interests. A lot of Congresspeople are on the payroll of certain companies which have a stake in keeping things as they are.

That, and our Congress has never seemed to work together very well without a leader dedicated to the task. LUCKILY Senator Obama looks quite like he would be dedicated to such a task, unlike Senator McCain. This means nothing on its own of course, but it's distinctly possible he'll be able to do more.

Other than that...we can just get involved at the level we're capable of and try to convince people. That's all we can do at this point.

The worst part about China's drilling, is that it is "slant" drill,ing. They are apparently from what I have heard, drilling in at an angle to hit oil reserves in US territorial waters. They aren't actually in US waters though.


I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!

It had to be said sooner or later.

Uh...the US is drilling in North Dakota. Williston is set to explode in population and property values all over again. Hopefully, they do it right this time so that the eventual bust (once the Bakken formation is tapped out) doesn't shred the region again.

You are correct. We do have the technology but not the infrastructure. However, if we don't get off our collective asses and start building that infrastructure we will never get off the Oil.

So, we need to start building nuclear, wind, and clean coal power stations, continue research into other clean energy sources, AND DRILL FOR OIL so we can have a reasonably priced source of energy until we get the alternative sources buitl.

If it were that simple then countries who have contended much longer with high fuel costs (Europe, please stand up) would already have done that - yet their imports all still run on petrol....

Meanwhile - here in the US (and this thread) it is still partisan bullshit over solutions every day. Real fuel consumption could be cut 117 billion gallons annually TOMORROW in the US and there is no need for new technology or conservation to do it;
http://www.ite.org/REPORTCARD/2005/NTS_TechReport.pdf

All we need to do is expect the government to do what they are responsible to do... Funny how congress hasn't mentioned this. They seem more interested in putting blame on other people than accepting their own responsibility.

As for me? I'm looking at getting one of these; http://www.e-marine-inc.com/products/wind_generators/whisper100.html and something like this; http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/ Just have to make sure my brilliant government does not have some stupid code restriction against the mill..
Should pay for itself in about 36 months.

Haha! Bicycles and walking boots for everyone!! Well, not me, of course.

Seriously, I can't wait until gas is about $10-$15 dollars a gallon. Things have been far to lax around here lately. And we'll get to see who's really been living a 'green' lifestyle, and who's just been using the environment as an excuse for some good old fashioned sanctimony.

Also, suburban people who can't afford their cars, welcome to the inner cities. Likewise suburban kids, welcome to inner city schools.

This will be a lolday.

Haha! Bicycles and walking boots for everyone!! Well, not me, of course.

Seriously, I can't wait until gas is about $10-$15 dollars a gallon. Things have been far to lax around here lately. And we'll get to see who's really been living a 'green' lifestyle, and who's just been using the environment as an excuse for some good old fashioned sanctimony.

Also, suburban people who can't afford their cars, welcome to the inner cities. Likewise suburban kids, welcome to inner city schools.

This will be a lolday.


Hopefully by then, everything will have solar panels on it. Everything should have solar panels on it. Well, maybe not my tacos. As intriguing as solar tacos sound, I suspect they wouldn't taste very good.

Also, suburban people who can't afford their cars, welcome to the inner cities. Likewise suburban kids, welcome to inner city schools.

A century ago, the suburban parts of cities used to be the lower-income and working class parts while the inner city was the home of the upper and middle classes. It's not implausible for such a shift to happen again.

A century ago, the suburban parts of cities used to be the lower-income and working class parts while the inner city was the home of the upper and middle classes. It's not implausible for such a shift to happen again.

Definitely. Look at developing countries. The shanty towns are always on the outskirts of the city.

Actually migration towards the city should happen anyway (for most people) regardless of gas prices, simply because it is more efficient in terms of time and resources. Though I question the viability of huge megalopolis, what with diminishing returns and all that.

Nevertheless, such a reverse shift, especially if driven by energy prices, will be a painful readjustment for all parties concerned.

Hopefully by then, everything will have solar panels on it. Everything should have solar panels on it. Well, maybe not my tacos. As intriguing as solar tacos sound, I suspect they wouldn't taste very good.

Solar taco grills.

If that is true, and I have my doubts, why is the price of oil so high and still going up? They are predicting $150 a barrel by July 4th. :(

It's probably nothing to do with Bush being backed by oil money.

So, we need to start building nuclear, wind, and clean coal power stations, continue research into other clean energy sources, AND DRILL FOR OIL so we can have a reasonably priced source of energy until we get the alternative sources buitl.

No, what we need to do is look into things like magma power - self-renewing fuel sources with huge yields. Coal and nuclear are both finite AND ecologically destructive, we should quit pissing good money after bad on both, and actually invest in some of the technologies that have less powerful lobbies.

No faith in our ability to do it? :( I'm an optimist not a pessimist. :)

Darn optimists! :mad: :p

The main problem is that, despite everyone complaining about oil, no actually wants to DO something about it!:(

increasing cost will lead the free market to sort something out when it needs to be sorted out (and probabaly provide lots of invisible hand-jobs) in the meantime increase fuel-tax to cut consumption and steady prices

complaining about Chinamen taking all the oil? well then create some sort of treaty and mask it as enviromental for double points!

Sounds like time for another Boston Tea Party. Damn left wing environmental idiots.

yeah how dare they protect the environment! (why is it knee jerk schemes like this always hit the hippies and housewives?)

Louisiana has a lot of oil rigs off their coast and a booming fishing industry.

I laughed :p

The main problem is that, despite everyone complaining about oil, no actually wants to DO something about it!:(

I don't know if all this talk of corrupt politicians is correct, it seems more like a general public who will moan either way no matter what the politicians do (and heaven help if this new technology is maybe funded by a tax hike)

Yeah, I think that three years as a deadline is more than a little bit idiotic. That's realism.

Three years is completely possible.

It just ain't happening because it is not necessary or seen as necessary by the majority (the latter applies even if it WAS necessary).

The cost might be in range of hundreds of billions but it is completely doable, the biggest - only? - problem is getting people to ditch their oil powered cars in favour of electrical powered ones or public transport.

For that matter, 3 year time scheme wouldn't be possible in a pseudo-democratic capitalistic society - You'd need directed economy and a degree of socialism or fascism to achieve it.

Three years is completely possible.

It just ain't happening because it is not necessary or seen as necessary by the majority (the latter applies even if it WAS necessary).

The cost might be in range of hundreds of billions but it is completely doable, the biggest - only? - problem is getting people to ditch their oil powered cars in favour of electrical powered ones or public transport.

For that matter, 3 year time scheme wouldn't be possible in a pseudo-democratic capitalistic society - You'd need directed economy and a degree of socialism or fascism to achieve it.

ROFLMAO!

Exactly! In fact - three years is pessimistic! If we spend even more we could do it in three weeks! In fact - there is nothing we couldn't accomplish in three years if we just threw enough money at it. We could have cars that run on water, holographic TV, interstellar warp engines and telekinesis.. We just need to spend more money! Money money money! Money holds the solution to all life's problems!

Orrr... we could just socialize science. Those bastard scientists aren't working hard enough. Damn bastards holding out the good inventions for more money. Screw that! Throw those fuckers in the brig until they cough up solar powered rocket packs!

...will lead the free market to...

I stopped reading at this point, because that opening gambit always leads to some unrealistic bullshit that is clearly contradicted in every realworld application.

If we put our minds to doing it. How long did it take for the Manhatten Project and how much has technology advanced since then? Hell yes we could do it if we committed to it.

Manhattan project took three years and made 3 atomic bombs.


so in 3 years we can have three solar powered cars ???

I stopped reading at this point, because that opening gambit always leads to some unrealistic bullshit that is clearly contradicted in every realworld application.

shhh I added it in to keep the libertarians quite ;) (did you piece together what the tax hike would be doing?)

Louisiana has a lot of oil rigs off their coast and a booming fishing industry.

Booming generally involves the industry doing well, not collapsing because over ninety percent of all commercial fish are dead. Fuck, drop the "commercial" and it's still accurate.

Here are articles from 2006 that indicates China is drilling for oil in the Florida straights, just 50 miles from the coast of Florida. So why is it the US isn't drilling off the coast of Florida, California, in the Dakotas or in Anwr?

The oil that is in Anwr and the shale oil in the Dakotas are each larger than the oil in Saudi Arabia. So, why are we paying OPEC outrageous prices for a barrel of oil when we can be drilling our own?

We should drill our own oil AND develop alternative energy sources such as nuclear and wind power. Why are we not doing that?

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19479
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/05/08/Worldandnation/Cuba_seeks_oil_near_K.shtml
We don't do that because our energy policy is for someone else to explore and pump enough oil to meet world-wide demands AND keep our prices down.

Why should we do something like that? Why should we do anything but gripe about "windfall" profits that the oil companies are "raking in"? And why should we do anything but threaten to tax them when they do spend millions of dollars to discover a huge supply in the deep water -- as they did with the Jack #2 field?

Probably because we have too many professional politicians in office and too few that have ever signed a paycheck.

Booming generally involves the industry doing well, not collapsing because over ninety percent of all commercial fish are dead. Fuck, drop the "commercial" and it's still accurate.
Louisiana doesn't think it's a dead industry...

Louisiana's commercial fishing industry produces about one quarter of all the seafood caught in the United States annually and is the largest producer of shrimp and oysters in the U.S. Commerical fishermen here hold the record for the largest catch in a single year at 1.9 billion pounds of seafood. In addition to shrimp and oysters, Louisiana's coast also yields menhaden, crab, drum, red snapper, tuna, as well as a variety of popular saltwater game fish, such as redfish, speckled trout and tarpon.

http://www.slec.org/site75.php

We don't do that because our energy policy is for someone else to explore and pump enough oil to meet world-wide demands AND keep our prices down.

Why should we do something like that? Why should we do anything but gripe about "windfall" profits that the oil companies are "raking in"? And why should we do anything but threaten to tax them when they do spend millions of dollars to discover a huge supply in the deep water -- as they did with the Jack #2 field?

Probably because we have too many professional politicians in office and too few that have ever signed a paycheck.

I have called for goverment ran by corporation for some time. no one listens to me though or they think i am making a parody of the republican party.

Solar taco grills.

lmao that actually made me laugh out loud.

I have called for goverment ran by corporation for some time. no one listens to me though or they think i am making a parody of the republican party.
There's a big difference between government run by a corporation and a government run by people that understand how to run a business. Too many of our legislators have no idea where the money they spend comes from. It just keeps on coming. If they run a little short, who cares. Put even a low level manager in that position and he'd be scared to death about running short of money.

There's a big difference between government run by a corporation and a government run by people that understand how to run a business. Too many of our legislators have no idea where the money they spend comes from. It just keeps on coming. If they run a little short, who cares. Put even a low level manager in that position and he'd be scared to death about running short of money.

Running short of money in a business results in the death of the business. Governments don't face this reality, at least not to anywhere close to the same degree.

Running short of money in a business results in the death of the business. Governments don't face this reality, at least not to anywhere close to the same degree.

Amen.

Running short of money in a business results in the death of the business. Governments don't face this reality, at least not to anywhere close to the same degree.
And your point is?

Mine is that they should. Can't pay the bills? Lay off some employees. Cut some services. Do something to cut expenses.

And your point is?

My point is that if puts people who know how to run a business into the the government and their attitudes will change.

Mine is that they should. Can't pay the bills? Lay off some employees. Cut some services. Do something to cut expenses.

I agree with you to some degree, but I don't think we should cut out long-term investments to make the budget look better in the short-term.

My point is that if puts people who know how to run a business into the the government and their attitudes will change.
Forgotten, have you, that Bush was trumpeted as the first MBA president?

Government is not a business (And business is not a government). They cannot be run the same way because they both have wildly different goals and responsibilities.

Forgotten, have you, that Bush was trumpeted as the first MBA president?

Bush is someone who knows how to run a successful business? :p

Government is not a business (And business is not a government). They cannot be run the same way because they both have wildly different goals and responsibilities.

I don't disagree.

Bush is someone who knows how to run a successful business? :p

Sure. Just because he failed at every attempt doesn't mean....

...oh. Right. Carry on. :p

Sure. Just because he failed at every attempt doesn't mean....

...oh. Right. Carry on. :p

Thanks for pointing out what was implicit in my post. :D

Thanks for pointing out what was implicit in my post. :D

My pleasure. Here, have a taco. :)

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/tacos.jpg

My pleasure. Here, have a taco. :)

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/tacos.jpg

Yummy! Have some pie (http://hissbakery.com/images/PI%20Chocolate%20cream.jpg).

Let us do the math and I'll show you.

The US has 21 billion barrels of oil in it's proven reserves.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_in_order
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html)
With current production, we expect to exhaust them in 12 years.

The US consumes (in 2005) 20.8 million barrels of oil a day.
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html)

Now, divide 21,000,000,000 by 20,800,000 and you get 1 009.61538 days or 2.76712329 years (I was a bit off). Sorry Charlie, drilling ain't going to work.


Can you get it done in less than three years?

Isn't your math off? Consumption wouldn't stay static at 20.8 million barrels, right?

Isn't your math off? Consumption wouldn't stay static at 20.8 million barrels, right?
Of course it assumes that consumption remains at present levels, but since consumption has yet to fall off drastically...

I have never understood why nuclear energy has not taken its place as a major source of energy in the US. We don't have to buy the fuel from anyone else, and it is possible to make the power plants much cleaner and safer than any fossil fuel power plant.

The oil that is in Anwr and the shale oil in the Dakotas are each larger than the oil in Saudi Arabia.

No. If we can't exhaust Saudi Arabian oil in just four years how could you expect to exhaust twice that amount in four years?

Maybe because it isn't twice the amount...but less than 4%??

I have no idea where you're getting your information if you think that ANWR and the Dakotas are each as substantial as Saudi Arabia.


ANWR - Mean estimate: 7.7 Billion Barrels
Bakken Formation - Mean estimate: 3.7 Billion Barrels
(Source: USGS)

Saudi Arabia Proven Reserves: 264 Billion Barrels
(Source: British Petroleum)

What source do you have that not only refutes this information, but credibly claims that the US domestic sources are fifty times larger than the United States Geological Survey states that they are?

Even with ANWR and Bakken and offshore, we still come up short of our current needs, and any increase in domestic production will take years to come online, have almost no impact on gasoline prices, and won't eliminate the need for significant importation of foreign oil...regardless of any environmental argument against drilling.

...drilling advocates are going to have to come up with better arguments.

Factual ones couldn't hurt either.

Speaking of China, they are providing a great example of why price fixing doesn't work... The government fixes gas prices and creates the highest demand, world-wide.

The US added just 7pc of crude demand growth from 2004 to 2007, compared with 34pc for China, 25pc for the Middle East and 17pc for emerging Asia.

Goldman Sachs argues that fuel prices in most of these countries are held down by state controls, insulating demand from the effect of any global downturn.

But this could change. Egypt - the most populous Arab country - has just raised petrol prices by 40pc. Rumours swept China yesterday that Beijing was preparing to lift fuel prices. While the Chinese government is unlikely to risk protests in the lead up to the Olympics, the jitters are a reminder that Asian states will have to take action sooner or later to wean their societies from subsidies.

How does a private company compete with the Chinese? Again, the answer lies with our incompetent politicians.

How many other Asian nations subsidize gas and oil?

How many other Asian nations subsidize gas and oil?

Ours does, but it's run by a bunch of kleptocrats who treat the treasury as their personal bank, so the subsidies are constantly being scaled back while the public transport infrastructure is falling to pieces.

I have never understood why nuclear energy has not taken its place as a major source of energy in the US. We don't have to buy the fuel from anyone else, and it is possible to make the power plants much cleaner and safer than any fossil fuel power plant.

Here is one reason;
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/nuclear

This was the whole reason they were incepted in 1971. Anti-nuclear sentiments ran substantially higher back before the newest greatest threat to mankind - climate change. you are probably too young to remember, but do some digging and you'll see how activists essentially prevented any progress on nuclear power in the US - much as they now do with oil production/refining.

Speaking of China, they are providing a great example of why price fixing doesn't work... The government fixes gas prices and creates the highest demand, world-wide.
Uh... BS.

Number one consumer of oil: The United States of America. Some 20,730,000 bbl/day

Number two is China: 6,534,000 bbl/day

Largest consumer of gasoline: The United States of America. 134.400 (Billions of gallons) is the number.

China is number two at 16.500.

The country with the largest demand is the United States of America. CHINA has a lot of catching up to do, boom time or no.

Here is one reason;
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/nuclear

This was the whole reason they were incepted in 1971. Anti-nuclear sentiments ran substantially higher back before the newest greatest threat to mankind - climate change. you are probably too young to remember, but do some digging and you'll see how activists essentially prevented any progress on nuclear power in the US - much as they now do with oil production/refining.

Yeah, I guess. It's too bad that stupid people like that had to ruin a perfectly viable form of energy for the US. France uses about 80% nuclear power, and while I don't think that the French are normal by any stretch of the imagination, you don't see them dying off because of radiation, or reactor leaks, or anything like that. If you build the buildings correctly and maintain them, nuclear power is one of the cleanest forms of energy out there (obviously wind/other sources of renewable energy would be cleaner, but still).

Let us do the math and I'll show you.

The US has 21 billion barrels of oil in it's proven reserves.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_in_order
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html)
With current production, we expect to exhaust them in 12 years.

The US consumes (in 2005) 20.8 million barrels of oil a day.
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html)

Now, divide 21,000,000,000 by 20,800,000 and you get 1 009.61538 days or 2.76712329 years (I was a bit off). Sorry Charlie, drilling ain't going to work.

Yes we can drill our way out of it the Bakken oil reserve (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5824026.html) is frakking huge estimated 400 to 500 billion barrels of light sweet crude oil dwarfing Saudi Arabia and most of the middle east combined. The oil industry in North Dakota is booming check out the oilfield jobs available (http://www.jobsnd.com/jsnd/jobsnd/news/news.detail.html?newsId=11541&locationId=#guest) in averaging $69,212 a year.

Yes we can drill our way out of it the Bakken oil reserve (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5824026.html) is frakking huge estimated 400 to 500 billion barrels of light sweet crude oil dwarfing Saudi Arabia and most of the middle east combined. The oil industry in North Dakota is booming check out the oilfield jobs available (http://www.jobsnd.com/jsnd/jobsnd/news/news.detail.html?newsId=11541&locationId=#guest) in averaging $69,212 a year.
Missed the part where it said that IF (if mind you, this is not proven) all that oil is there, it's two miles below between rocks that is hard to get through, and we can't get to it right now didn't you?

But hell, if we can just use speculation and sometime-in-the-future as a basis for a policy, I can sell you the largest silver strike in the world. The Comstock Lode in Nevada is STILL there... it's just gone so deep we can't mine it any more, but we can still count it, right?

Hi there! It's another edition of sirmomo1 asks a question that is probably foolish. I'm your host, sirmomo1

*Pause for applause*

Thankyou, you're all too kind.

NSG, your probably foolish question is this: There's a lot of talk in this thread about oil as a source of energy. Isn't oil used for all kinds of other stuff too? Even if we move onto alternative energy without problems, what happens to all those other stuff when we run out of oil?

Hi there! It's another edition of sirmomo1 asks a question that is probably foolish. I'm your host, sirmomo1

*Pause for applause*

Thankyou, you're all too kind.

NSG, your probably foolish question is this: There's a lot of talk in this thread about oil as a source of energy. Isn't oil used for all kinds of other stuff too? Even if we move onto alternative energy without problems, what happens to all those other stuff when we run out of oil?
'Tis a very big problem as oil is of course the basis of plastics as well.

Hi there! It's another edition of sirmomo1 asks a question that is probably foolish. I'm your host, sirmomo1

*Pause for applause*

Thankyou, you're all too kind.

NSG, your probably foolish question is this: There's a lot of talk in this thread about oil as a source of energy. Isn't oil used for all kinds of other stuff too? Even if we move onto alternative energy without problems, what happens to all those other stuff when we run out of oil?

Our plastics industry disappears up it's own ass, for one.

Missed the part where it said that IF (if mind you, this is not proven) all that oil is there, it's two miles below between rocks that is hard to get through, and we can't get to it right now didn't you?

But hell, if we can just use speculation and sometime-in-the-future as a basis for a policy, I can sell you the largest silver strike in the world. The Comstock Lode in Nevada is STILL there... it's just gone so deep we can't mine it any more, but we can still count it, right?We are getting to it right now there is a boom in oilfield jobs and the pipeline carrying Montana and North Dakota crude is at capacity (http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/968299281.shtml)making some oil wells shut down. Do you think the shutting down oilfields due to the pipeline being at capacity is because of speculation?

We are getting to it right now there is a boom in oilfield jobs and the pipeline carrying Montana and North Dakota crude is at capacity (http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/968299281.shtml)making some oil wells shut down. Do you think the shutting down oilfields due to the pipeline being at capacity is because of speculation?
Your story doesn't have anything to do with your statement, nor does it contradict anything previously posted. My numbers have their sources, said sources are the Federal government, you haven't posted anything beyond just, yes, speculation from various people.