 |
 Op-Ed: The Oil Crisis and How Big Government Makes it Worse
The current nationwide average price for gasoline at the pump is $3.556 per gallon, a 14 cent increase from the previous week. At the same time, crude oil prices have been at record numbers, marching toward the inevitable $120 per barrel.
In 2005, however, the average price of crude oil was less than half the current price at $50.23 per barrel while the price at the pump was an average of $2.27 per gallon.
To put that number into better perspective, in January of 2005 the retail price of gasoline was $1.78, rising to $3.07 per gallon after Hurricane Katrina caused damage to major refineries. This tragic disaster undoubtedly wrought an increase in prices while also increasing the years average.
Gas prices in the United States are clearly on the rise and both short-term and long-term solutions need to be figured out. Cutting state and federal taxes, and calming tensions in the Middle East would help immediately lower the price of gasoline. At the same time, removing government subsidies on energy solutions will help bring about a permanent replacement to gasoline.
It is absolutely necessary for all state and federal taxes to be cut at the pump. The average American pays 42 cents in taxes per gallon of gasoline that they purchase. 18.4 of those cents go directly to the federal government. Some people will say that gas prices are so high because of “greedy” oil companies, but, to put it into perspective, those companies only make about 10 cents in profit per gallon. It seems as though the state and federal governments are the ones being greedy at the expense of the average citizen.
It is not possible, of course, to cut taxes without cutting spending and the easiest place to do so is in the arena of foreign policy and making these changes would also help solve the energy crisis. Before the war in Iraq, crude oil cost about $28 per barrel. Now, as was mentioned earlier, crude oil has has been approaching $120 per barrel.
Iraq was, previous to the war, a major producer of worldwide oil, but since 2002 their production has dropped by 50%. By interfering in the national affairs of Iraq, the United States has created an unstable environment in the country. This has led to pipeline sabotage and oil fires that have damaged or eradicated supplies. If the Iraq War were never fought the overall supply of oil would be higher because these events would not have occurred. The United States government needs to stop intervening in the affairs of countries that are not a threat to this country’s national security. Only then will Middle East tensions drop leading to a decline in oil prices.
The long-term solution to the energy crisis is switching to an alternate fuel. It is very important, however, that the marketplace select this alternate fuel and not the government. The marketplace responds to simple principles of economics such as supply and demand, but when the government gets involved and artificially lowers the price of a product through subsidies, demand for that product also artificially rises, causing more people to be attracted to that product then would be if those subsidies did not exist. This might seem like a good thing when it comes to alternate fuels (increased demand for an alternate fuel should mean less people are using gasoline), but if the government chooses the wrong product, as they did in the case of ethanol, then there could be disastrous consequences.
It is important to realize that the only reason ethanol can reach the pump at a competitive price is because of government involvement and subsidies. Conservative estimates by the nonpartisan International Institute for Sustainable Development puts ethanol subsidies in 2006 at somewhere between $5.1 billion and $6.8 billion. They also predict that these subsidies will increase to $8.7 billion annually within the next few years. Oil subsidies, on the other hand, are only about $1 billion per year.
Ethanol costs, on average, $2.53 per gallon just to produce. Yet, in 2006, the average price for ethanol at the pump was between $1.05 and $1.38. This means that ethanol was selling at 42% to 55% of the actual production cost . Without these federal subsidies the price of ethanol would have needed to be increased to twice that price for the producers to even turn a small profit.
This type of taxpayer-funded price reduction might seem justified if ethanol was actually a good long-term solution. It is, however, impossible for ethanol to completely replace gasoline usage in the United States. If all of the corn that was produced in America was used to produce ethanol, and that seems like an absurdly unlikely event to occur, then demand for gasoline would only be decreased by 12%.
According to the United States Department of Energy, all cropland in the United States, plus 20% more land, would need to be allocated for corn production to allow ethanol to completely replace gasoline. This, of course, is an utter impossibility that illustrates the government’s incompetency when choosing what alternative energy source to subsidize.
The consequence of these subsidies is an artificial increase in the demand for ethanol. This increase in demand has caused people to overlook other forms of alternative fuel and focus research and development on creating ethanol-powered automobiles. If the price were allowed to rise to market levels, which would likely be more than the price of gasoline for a fuel with less energy content, then the realization would have been met that ethanol is not the savior of the energy crisis. Researchers would then begin looking into other forms of alternate fuel.
The solution is to get the government out of the business of subsidizing fuels. That includes ethanol, gasoline, natural gas, and any other energy source that the government is shoveling money into. When this is done the marketplace, through consumers and businesses, can decide which fuel is the best alternative.
Honda, for instance, has created a hydrogen-powered sedan that should be released sometime in 2008. This comes in spite of the false market demand that has been created by the government for ethanol-powered vehicles. If ethanol were not subsidized so heavily it might turn out that more companies would focus on hydrogen power which is arguably cleaner, cheaper and an overall better long-term solution than ethanol. False market demand through subsidies, however, has made ethanol appear to be the better choice.
So, it seems fair to say that the government -- through high taxes, foreign intervention, and ethanol subsidies -- has been a major player in causing the current energy crisis and high price of gasoline. The only way to solve the problem is by doing exactly the opposite. The government needs to remove gasoline taxes, end its policy of foreign interventionism, and stop subsidizing Big Oil and Big Ethanol. The government will not decide to do this on its own, however, so it is up to the people to elect officials that are in favor of the libertarian ideals of small government. Only then will we be able to solve the looming energy crisis.
-
"Gas prices in the United States are clearly on the rise and both short-term and long-term solutions need to be figured out. Cutting state and federal taxes, and calming tensions in the Middle East would help immediately lower the price of gasoline. At the same time, removing government subsidies on energy solutions will help bring about a permanent replacement to gasoline."
A very fine piece, Rational Anarchist.
-
I guess the gas prices reflect where one lives. Here...we're hanging on at about $3.6999 a gallon. Oh the misery!
-
@ Brant David McLaughlin
"Gas prices in the United States are clearly on the rise and both short-term and long-term solutions need to be figured out. Cutting state and federal taxes, and calming tensions in the Middle East would help immediately lower the price of gasoline. At the same time, removing government subsidies on energy solutions will help bring about a permanent replacement to gasoline."
A very fine piece, Rational Anarchist.
Thanks!
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
I guess the gas prices reflect where one lives. Here...we're hanging on at about $3.6999 a gallon. Oh the misery!
Yeah, where I'm at its hovering around $3.60. -
Some people will say that gas prices are so high because of “greedy” oil companies, but, to put it into perspective, those companies only make about 10 cents in profit per gallon. It seems as though the state and federal governments are the ones being greedy at the expense of the average citizen.
Please, not another apologist for the oil industry's windfall profits. Who, if anyone, is advocating for the consumer? Any government tears, it being a major beneficiary, will be of the crocodile variety.
The one positive thing may be that those not too wedded to their gas-guzzlers, acquire some sanity - maybe even use public transit occasionally. -
Where I am in Toronto, we're paying $1.217 per litre. If we convert that into gallons that is $4.60 per gallon (1 gal = 3.785 L)
Americans still have much cheaper gas than Canadians. And Toronto is not the most expensive in the country, either. We should ask Planet Janet what they're getting in the U.K. because I bet it's even higher. -
@ Chris Hogg
Where I am in Toronto, we're paying $1.217 per litre. If we convert that into gallons that is $4.60 per gallon (1 gal = 3.785 L)
Americans still have much cheaper gas that Canadians. And Toronto is not the most expensive in the country, either.
Ouch! I don't own a vehicle right now...I am not sure I could afford to keep gas in it with these prices!!! -
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
I am not sure I could afford to keep gas in it with these prices!!!
A lot of people here are saying the same thing. -
The less people who can afford it the better. This will cause an increase in demand for public transportation, walking and cycling. To say that the oil companies aren't part of the problem isn't true though. They're making record profits every year. They don't need government subsidy and they don't need to make so much money.
-
@ atroxodisse
The less people who can afford it the better. This will cause an increase in demand for public transportation, walking and cycling. To say that the oil companies aren't part of the problem isn't true though. They're making record profits every year. They don't need government subsidy and they don't need to make so much money.
They are part of the problem, but there is also the issue of restricted competition. It is nearly impossible to start a new company, because of government regulations, and it is even harder to build new refineries. Too much government regulation. -
@ Chris Hogg
Where I am in Toronto, we're paying $1.217 per litre. If we convert that into gallons that is $4.60 per gallon (1 gal = 3.785 L)
Americans still have much cheaper gas than Canadians. And Toronto is not the most expensive in the country, either. We should ask Planet Janet what they're getting in the U.K. because I bet it's even higher.
This is interesting, so here's whats happening over here....
Over in the UK about four years ago or so, trucks and HGV's went on a go slow along many of the motorways up and down the country creating havoc and miles upon miles of traffic at a stand still over the increase of petrol and diesel in the UK - they were, then protesting about petrol going over a pound per litre and that it would destroy many of the small businesses in the UK who rely on transport for their business. Then, the average price was around 90p per litre.
Here we are today and it is not unusual to drive past a petrol station who is selling £1.09p per litre - the protesting trucks and lorries barricading the oil stations are nowhere to be seen? and why? Because we have given up the fight - transport companies and logistics businesses always find a way to keep in trade - we will always find a way to get to work, they will always find a way to keep buses and other modes of public transport on the road.
Not just in the UK but everywhere...it's the way of the world and despite the Cold War - those in the world with the most power and money are the ones with the oil - no one else, and they are the countries who dictate to the rest of us... -
I have just been informed that in the north of the UK around the Scottish borders, it is around £1.47 for a litre of diesel.....That is a lot of Canadian dollars!
-
@ Michelle D. (PlanetJanet)
Here we are today and it is not unusual to drive past a petrol station who is selling £1.09p per litre
Thanks PJ. we figured your fuel would be astronomically more expensive:
£1.09p = $2.16 USD per litre.
1 gal = 3.785 L
$2.16 x 3.785 = $8.18 per gallon
That is so beyond scary. -
@ Digital Journal Staff
Thanks PJ. we figured your fuel would be astronomically more expensive:
£1.09p = $2.16 USD per litre.
1 gal = 3.785 L
$2.16 x 3.785 = $8.18 per gallon
That is so beyond scary.
/Chris faints. -
Some places have upwards of $4.15 per gallon of gas. They are estimating by summer we will have around $5.00 a gallon per gas as the national average, which would put some places over that in bigger metropolis areas.
Rational great piece. I think you have a great assesment that the Iraq war has raised oil prices, but if you want to talk about cutting government spending you can't single out Iraq because we have some serious waste, fraud, and abuse going on that has nothing to do with the war.
-
@ Samantha A. Torrence
...if you want to talk about cutting government spending you can't single out Iraq because we have some serious waste, fraud, and abuse going on that has nothing to do with the war.
And that's a whole other story, Sam! (Hint-hint!) :) -
Oh I've been working on it Deb, I like to have lots of those annoying links so that people can see what evidence I have gathered for themselves. *grin*
-
@ Samantha A. Torrence
Oh I've been working on it Deb, I like to have lots of those annoying links so that people can see what evidence I have gathered for themselves. *grin*
But that's a good thing! Links in reports show that it has been investigated and it gives us readers the chance TO go see it ourselves! :) -
http://www.nysun.com/news/food-crisis-eclipsing-climate-change
ADD Oscar/nobel WINNAH to the REASONS for what we are facing.. Big nanny Gove't is just as bad and Corrupt as are FAT idiots like Gore and Moore .. BUT the Biggest Culprits are the MSM and Networks who jump on the band wagon without any thought of what they are doing and WE the Public wo act like a gaggle of ducks who follow them without engaging brains... So we get what we deserve.. keep that in mind in Nov...
-
@ Digital Journal Staff
Thanks PJ. we figured your fuel would be astronomically more expensive:
£1.09p = $2.16 USD per litre.
1 gal = 3.785 L
$2.16 x 3.785 = $8.18 per gallon
That is so beyond scary.
Based on this, we in the USA are not as bad off after all.. we are somewhat Naive at not drilling for our own oil in our vast untapped reserves but instead of our Congressional inepts blamimg the Oil companies for HIGH profits in the USA they need to wake up and realize that much profit is made in other parts of the world by the very same companies... and BIG nanny gov't is still clueless after all .. -
Of course, in the U.K. and much of Europe, workers commute smaller distances, drive smaller fuel-sipping vehicles, cycle more on bicycle-friendlier roads and, in many instances, have superior public transit.
If I were to return to the U,K., I most likely wouldn't own a car - an electric bike or scooter, perhaps.
-
@ Samantha A. TorrenceRational great piece. I think you have a great assesment that the Iraq war has raised oil prices, but if you want to talk about cutting government spending you can't single out Iraq because we have some serious waste, fraud, and abuse going on that has nothing to do with the war.
Thanks. I absolutely agree that there are hundreds of other places to cut wasteful spending, but I used Iraq as a specific example because getting out of there would cut spending, but also lower prices by easing tensions with the Middle East. Getting our bases out of countries like Egypt would also probably help immensely.
@ skeptikool
Please, not another apologist for the oil industry's windfall profits. Who, if anyone, is advocating for the consumer? Any government tears, it being a major beneficiary, will be of the crocodile variety.
The one positive thing may be that those not too wedded to their gas-guzzlers, acquire some sanity - maybe even use public transit occasionally.
I am not apologizing for them, but look at it this way. If they cut their profits in half it would only save you five cents per gallon. Thats not a very significant amount. -
Someone should create a social networking site specifically for people who want to start a boycott and once the site reaches a certain number of people ( say 1 million) than everyone should not drive for one full day or two. That should cause the government and the oil companies to pay attention. That would be $500,000 that the government and the oil companies would be out in just one day. Doesn't seem like much but imagine if it started a chain reaction, lol.
-
@ jxtra
Someone should create a social networking site specifically for people who want to start a boycott and once the site reaches a certain number of people ( say 1 million) than everyone should not drive for one full day or two. That should cause the government and the oil companies to pay attention. That would be $500,000 that the government and the oil companies would be out in just one day. Doesn't seem like much but imagine if it started a chain reaction, lol.
OR.. We all write to our Imbeciles in DC and tell them to GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER between Now and November... We are Fed up with their Inept ways of doing "the People's Business" wittnessed yesterday by Cong. Markey's joke of an attempt to justify doing nothing by having a stacked panel of Ethanol supporter from private businesses testify to a congressional panel of 7 Dem and 2 GOP , the last supporting more oil exploration and additional refineries.. POLITICAL agendas are what is screwing up the issue!
Oil cos since 1971 when we were paying 26centa gallon and they were charging over $ 2.00 a gallon in Europe have been making more of their profits overseas... But Gov't and Greenies have kept them from building refinery capacity to meet increasing demend here for over 30 years.. and same inbeciles are Whining over more domestic oil production .. JERKS ALL! -
@ skeptikool
Of course, in the U.K. and much of Europe, workers commute smaller distances, drive smaller fuel-sipping vehicles, cycle more on bicycle-friendlier roads and, in many instances, have superior public transit.
If I were to return to the U,K., I most likely wouldn't own a car - an electric bike or scooter, perhaps.
BINGO.. You are so Right but in North America we deal with Longer Distances and have poor public transportation systems.. this is part of the Issues not really addressed.
IE a Huge truck System when RR can move freight to major centers cheaper and more effectively.. trucks ( electric perhaps) could the take goods from dist Centers to local retail places?? BUT lobbyist and Union Special interests have "bought" the supposed public servants and nothig gets done... again a rotten political system of self preservation is "gumming up the works".. may be term limits might be a solution to keep "fat cats" out of the works! -
RationalAnarchist:
A good thought-provoking article. I do have a few problems with specific issues, though:
It is absolutely necessary for all state and federal taxes to be cut at the pump.
So that we won't have any funds for repairing highways, repairing bridges, or building mass transit? And funds to subsidize ethanol? (Isn't that where the money for the ethanol subsidies comes from?) We have an immense amount of work to do to adapt this society to the post-petroleum era, and we need money to do it with. Making gasoline cheaper by removing the taxes on it merely encourages people to burn more of it. That isn't the answer.
The long-term solution to the energy crisis is switching to an alternate fuel.
What makes you think that there is going to be an alternative fuel? There is no free lunch. You have to get the energy from somewhere. Will it be nuclear reactors making electricity making hydrogen (and making our children glow in the dark and be born with cancer)? Or will it be coal generating electricity making hydrogen and making our children cough to death and giving the Polar Bears suntans and tropical vacations at the North Pole from Global Warming?
Ethanol -- especially from corn -- is a dead end. It uses more energy than it creates. So the "alternative fuel" won't be ethanol, and it won't be bio-diesel either, for the same reason.
All of the talk about "alternative fuels" assumes that people will be able to keep their cars and commute between the city and suburbia every day. No way Jose'. Suburbia is done for. The personal automobile is doomed. That whole lifestyle is done for. It was just a moment in time, only made possible by cheap oil. The party is over. There is simply no way on Earth that 100 million Americans can get the energy from somewhere to continue driving cars when the oil runs out. (Never mind several hundred million Chinese and Indians who also want cars. Not gonna happen.)
Envision a society where most people live within walking distance of their work. And a lot more people live on the farms. And railroads are the major transportation system. And "Globalism" is a forgotten joke. Basically, imagine the year 1900, with a bit more electronics.
Search YouTube for James Kunstler and "The End of Suburbia". Or download the movie. It's educational. -
@ Orange
So that we won't have any funds for repairing highways, repairing bridges, or building mass transit? And funds to subsidize ethanol? (Isn't that where the money for the ethanol subsidies comes from?) We have an immense amount of work to do to adapt this society to the post-petroleum era, and we need money to do it with. Making gasoline cheaper by removing the taxes on it merely encourages people to burn more of it. That isn't the answer.
I do not believe that ethanol should be subsidized. It creates an artificial demand for a very unimpressive fuel. As far as the roads go, under the current paradigm I would say keep only the amount of tax that actually goes to funding the roads and nothing else.
What makes you think that there is going to be an alternative fuel? There is no free lunch. You have to get the energy from somewhere. Will it be nuclear reactors making electricity making hydrogen (and making our children glow in the dark and be born with cancer)? Or will it be coal generating electricity making hydrogen and making our children cough to death and giving the Polar Bears suntans and tropical vacations at the North Pole from Global Warming?
You may be right, there might not be an alternate fuel. Or, it could be nuclear power which has become safer while producing less waste. It could be solar power (which is also becoming cheaper and more efficient), wind power, or geothermal energy making electricity to make hydrogen. Heck, the way solar power is coming along it might be the sun powering our cars. The point is, it is not up to one person, or some small group of politicians to decide. I did not know whether HD-DVD or Blu-Ray would be the better technology, and I do not know which option will be the outcome in the case of energy. The market has spoken in the format wars, however, and it will do the same for an energy source if it is allowed to.
Ethanol -- especially from corn -- is a dead end. It uses more energy than it creates. So the "alternative fuel" won't be ethanol, and it won't be bio-diesel either, for the same reason.
I completely agree. Ethanol from corn can never meet the current demand. There always is the possibility of genetically engineered corn or sugar (only for fuel) that grows more densely aand has a higher energy content. The market can work miracles sometimes.
All of the talk about "alternative fuels" assumes that people will be able to keep their cars and commute between the city and suburbia every day. No way Jose'. Suburbia is done for. The personal automobile is doomed. That whole lifestyle is done for. It was just a moment in time, only made possible by cheap oil. The party is over. There is simply no way on Earth that 100 million Americans can get the energy from somewhere to continue driving cars when the oil runs out. (Never mind several hundred million Chinese and Indians who also want cars. Not gonna happen.)
Envision a society where most people live within walking distance of their work. And a lot more people live on the farms. And railroads are the major transportation system. And "Globalism" is a forgotten joke. Basically, imagine the year 1900, with a bit more electronics.
Search YouTube for James Kunstler and "The End of Suburbia". Or download the movie. It's educational.
I don't claim to know whether this will be the case in the future, but it is definitely a possibility. -
@ Michael Billy (TRA)
I do not believe that ethanol should be subsidized. It creates an artificial demand for a very unimpressive fuel. As far as the roads go, under the current paradigm I would say keep only the amount of tax that actually goes to funding the roads and nothing else.
But what about building mass transit? We really should do that. Or else a huge number of people are going to be walking everywhere.
You may be right, there might not be an alternate fuel. Or, it could be nuclear power which has become safer while producing less waste.
I seriously doubt that it is possible to make nuclear energy less toxic. And the amount of waste generated is simply unavoidable. That's just what uranium and plutonium do.
And hydrogen fusion has turned out to be a big bust. We have made no progress on that since 1978. Unfortunately.
Plus there is the question of sustainable technology. Nuclear reactors are very high technology, and they rely on a whole infrastructure of other high technology for parts, tools, purified fuel, and instrumentation and control. Take away just one of those things and the reactors won't work. And a lot of our infrastructure is likely to deteriorate when the petroleum gets scarce and a lot of industries stop working. So imagining that there will actually be any working reactors in 200 or 300 years may be just wishful thinking.
It could be solar power (which is also becoming cheaper and more efficient), wind power, or geothermal energy making electricity to make hydrogen.
Solar and wind are wonderful, but so far they don't even generate enough energy to keep everybody's televisions and computers running, never mind do heavy work like run a car.
Heck, the way solar power is coming along it might be the sun powering our cars.
Again, I don't think there will be any more cars. At least, not the way we have them now. The personal car is out. Trucks for carrying food to the local markets will have the highest priority for what little fuel or energy there is available. And then trucks for carrying essential materials and tools will have the next priority. Then ambulances and fire trucks, and so on. People joy-riding in private vehicles will get such low priority that they just won't get any fuel or energy.
What is more likely is that most people will ride bicycles and the solar cells will power their MP3 players.
The point is, it is not up to one person, or some small group of politicians to decide. I did not know whether HD-DVD or Blu-Ray would be the better technology, and I do not know which option will be the outcome in the case of energy. The market has spoken in the format wars, however, and it will do the same for an energy source if it is allowed to.
I think that the laws of physics will make the decisions. "The market", or "market forces" will be pretty irrelevant. So will the politicians. People will buy whatever they can get, and what actually works. "Whatever they can get" does of course include the limitation that if something is simply far too expensive, then they can't get it. Like, nobody will buy a car if fuel is impossibly expensive.
I completely agree. Ethanol from corn can never meet the current demand. There always is the possibility of genetically engineered corn or sugar (only for fuel) that grows more densely and has a higher energy content. The market can work miracles sometimes.
When you look at what a disaster "agribusiness" really is, then it becomes obvious that it simply has no future. Agribusiness is a system for turning petroleum into food. Agribusiness uses 10 calories of petroleum energy to create 1 calorie of food. That is simply not sustainable. Not even genetically-engineered corn is going to fix that.
Interestingly, the "primitive" Southeast-Asian farmer who pushes a plow behind a water buffalo uses one calorie of energy to grow 10 calories of food. So who is really primitive? And who has a system that can work for 10,000 years?
And in fact, the corn that they grow on American farms now is already highly genetically engineered, and it has been bred into a very strange industrial input material that actually isn't even edible by humans. (That too will end, and we will go back to growing decent edible corn.) PBS just did a great program on that, where two guys from the city went to Iowa to grow one acre of corn, and learn all about corn and modern agriculture, and make a movie about it. They found out that they couldn't actually eat their own corn that they grew. It "tasted like sh*t." It was just a specially-bred ultra-high-yield industrial material.
I don't claim to know whether this will be the case in the future, but it is definitely a possibility.
Yeh, I don't know for sure either, but I have strong suspicions that Mother Nature just won't let us break the laws of physics, and our future is pretty much already determined.
When you look at the big picture of human history, the Age of Oil has only been one century. During all of the other centuries, people made do without petroleum, and they still managed to farm and grow food, and build cities, and travel and trade. I think we will be looking hard at how they did it, and doing things that way again.
I just hope that we can improve on things a little, like not burning so much coal that our cities are uninhabitable. -
This article is fantastic. Recently where I live gas hit $1.22 per litre, or approximately 4CDN per gallon. It cost me 60 dollars to fill up a small car the other day.
It was then that I decided I was going to drive astronomically less. I don't drive much as it is, but I always said my limit was 1.05 per litre. The bottom line on the oil issue above is that if nothing is done, it'll just stop people from driving. Some people have no limit on how much they'll pay, but eventually gas will outprice everyone to the point where only the more wealthy can afford to drive. It's ridiculous, because it's simply lowering the standard of living for nearly 100 million people in North America.
Ridiculous. Why are the only people that realize this fact the ones that have the least power?
-
Why are the only people that realize this fact the ones that have the least power?
I suspect that the rich and powerful people are too invested in the system. If you own $10 million worth of General Motors stock, do you want to hear about the end of the oil age? The rich and powerful people go into denial when somebody talks about Peak Oil. The thought is unthinkable. It will mean that most of their wealth is an illusion, and nothing is safe.
Unfortunately, none of the current USA Presidential candidates will talk about this. They are all afraid of being labeled as radicals, pessimists, or crazies. So they all continue to talk about how optimistic they are, and what a wonderful future they foresee.
(But they can't be that blind. G.W.Bush and his father both have experience in the oil industry. They know what is going on, but won't say it. Getting the oil still looks like the best reason for the USA to be in Iraq.) -
P.S.: The denial is everywhere. And Warren Buffett sees it. Reuters just reported this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN2847461420080428
Buffett says recession may be worse than feared
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Warren Buffett, the world's richest person, said on Monday the U.S. economy is in a recession that will be more severe than most people expect.
...
"This is not a field of specialty for me, but my general feeling is that the recession will be longer and deeper than most people think," Buffett said. "This will not be short and shallow."
=================================
Warrren Buffett can't even get the rest of the pundits, talking heads, "experts", and rich people to see that a bad recession/depression is coming. Good luck on getting them to see that oil shortage will cause a permanent world-wide depression. They really don't want to hear it.
Simon and Garfunkle sang 40 years ago:
"All lies and jest,
Still a man hears what he wants to hear,
and disregards the rest.
Ooh-la-la-la-la-la-la-la.
== "The Boxer", by Paul Simon and Art Garfunkle -
@ Orange
I suspect that the rich and powerful people are too invested in the system. If you own $10 million worth of General Motors stock, do you want to hear about the end of the oil age? The rich and powerful people go into denial when somebody talks about Peak Oil. The thought is unthinkable. It will mean that most of their wealth is an illusion, and nothing is safe.
Unfortunately, none of the current USA Presidential candidates will talk about this. They are all afraid of being labeled as radicals, pessimists, or crazies. So they all continue to talk about how optimistic they are, and what a wonderful future they foresee.
(But they can't be that blind. G.W.Bush and his father both have experience in the oil industry. They know what is going on, but won't say it. Getting the oil still looks like the best reason for the USA to be in Iraq.)
"The Bush"s were in the oil Business" ( old, tired diatribe),, Latest Reports seem to be that THERE is Sufficient Oil available in the Open market but Speculators are the ones driving prices out of control ..( OPEC Cartel+ Big Oil are monopolies+ Speculators are the reasons for oil being close to 200 per varrel) I still believe that bringing the old "tired" W -Oil connection into this latest Debate is really suprfluous to the Rality of Lack of Refinery capacity and Lack of domestic oil Production.. The moment the Cretins in DC wake up to cut red tape on these two issues I'll bet that we can drive prices to 56-54 Dollars per barrel in a hurry// ant BTW Corn Etahnol is dead issue.. DEAD.. It takes 400-450 lbs of corn to produce 20 Gallons of Polluting ethanol... -
@ Szplug
This article is fantastic. Recently where I live gas hit $1.22 per litre, or approximately 4CDN per gallon. It cost me 60 dollars to fill up a small car the other day.
It was then that I decided I was going to drive astronomically less. I don't drive much as it is, but I always said my limit was 1.05 per litre. The bottom line on the oil issue above is that if nothing is done, it'll just stop people from driving. Some people have no limit on how much they'll pay, but eventually gas will outprice everyone to the point where only the more wealthy can afford to drive. It's ridiculous, because it's simply lowering the standard of living for nearly 100 million people in North America.
Ridiculous. Why are the only people that realize this fact the ones that have the least power?
I think that If all of us in No America took to drive intelligently ( Car poo, Fewr daily wasteful trips fora gallon of milk etc)by cutting down driving by 25% a month, with the result of falling oil prices driven by lesser demand which will create an abundant oversupply, the Seculators will try to sell out and drive the prices to REALITY..So in Reality We The Public have the power to drive the cost of this Commodity down with some Intelligent planning, and practicing self discipline... -
@ TheRationalAnarchist
I do not believe that ethanol should be subsidized. It creates an artificial demand for a very unimpressive fuel. As far as the roads go, under the current paradigm I would say keep only the amount of tax that actually goes to funding the roads and nothing else.
If we were to look at all the Road and Bridge and Dam building Moneys that DC gave to the individual States Road building agencies pver the ladt 20 years that somehow got Misused, Abused, or Diverted to " Special" projects for Politicians ( See Louisiana Mary Landreau 's Private canal built to facilitate her access to open water instead of Damn Building ) We would not even talk about Infastructure Falling apart.. But w e might see an slight increase of population in " country club type" of Lock ups!!
-
@ redhawk
"The Bush"s were in the oil Business" ( old, tired diatribe),, Latest Reports seem to be that THERE is Sufficient Oil available in the Open market but Speculators are the ones driving prices out of control ..( OPEC Cartel+ Big Oil are monopolies+ Speculators are the reasons for oil being close to 200 per varrel) I still believe that bringing the old "tired" W -Oil connection into this latest Debate is really suprfluous to the Rality of Lack of Refinery capacity and Lack of domestic oil Production.. The moment the Cretins in DC wake up to cut red tape on these two issues I'll bet that we can drive prices to 56-54 Dollars per barrel in a hurry// ant BTW Corn Etahnol is dead issue.. DEAD.. It takes 400-450 lbs of corn to produce 20 Gallons of Polluting ethanol...
No, the tired old diatribe is to blame speculators for the price of oil What do you think they do, eat it?
A speculator is somebody who buys oil on Monday and hopes to sell it for a higher price on Friday. They cannot and do not permanently raise the price of oil. They merely profit from a rise.
(And if the price goes down, they lose their shirts.)
The reason oil is so expensive is because world demand is greater than the supply. Period. The problem isn't speculators. The problem isn't rules or regulations. The problem isn't OPEC. The problem is that nearly all of the major oil fields in the world are in decline, and can't produce any more than they already are, and the world's demand for oil is greater than the supply.
Imagining that there is any other cause is just wishful thinking. It would be nice if the problem was just speculators. Kick their asses and we get cheap oil and gas. No such luck.
Likewise, it would be nice if rules and regulations were the problem. Just change the rules and we all get cheap oil and gas. No such luck.
And it would be nice if OPEC was just holding out on us. But the truth is that OPEC members cheat all of the time, and pump more than their quotas. That's why the price of oil collapsed during the nineties. But now the OPEC members cannot cheat. They can't pump more than their quotas. Their oil fields won't give that much oil.
No, the real answer is the one that people really don't want to hear: The Earth cannot produce any more oil than it is already doing, and then the output will decline, and the prices and shortages will get worse. Really worse.
Earlier, several people, including me, were predicting $100 bbl oil by Christmas or by the end of the year. We missed Christmas by only a few days. Oil hit $100 on Dec. 28. Now, I'm predicting $200 oil by this Christmas. It's simple. It's just supply and demand -- not enough supply, and too much demand.
People don't want to hear that, so they go into denial and seek a scape-goat. "It's all OPEC's fault. It's all the speculators. It's Washington's rules." No, it isn't. It's the limitations of the planet Earth. That truth isn't so easy to take. -
Orange... REALLY??? NOt your Green agenda by any chance or am I misreading you???
-
No, I don't have any green agenda. I don't have any agenda at all, other than telling the truth. The simple truth is that the free lunch is over. The age of cheap oil is over. The private automobile and suburbia are history.
All of the talk about alternative energy or green fuels is just a kind of denial -- refusal to admit that the system of cities and suburbs and globalization is fundamentally flawed and unworkable. People like to image that they can continue to commute to their split-level tract homes in the suburbs, by just filling their tanks with a slightly different fuel. Forget it. Not gonna happen. There isn't going to be any cheap energy at all.
Our country is going to go through very major changes, and it won't be pretty. Personally, I think too many people will stay in denial for too long, and not do anything to fix things until it's too late. What's coming will make the Great Depression look like a Sunday-school picnic.
But do your hear any of the major candidates for President talking about this? No way Jose'. They won't get elected if they tell the truth. That's the kind of national denial that is going on. And that's why nothing will be done.
-
@ Orange
No, I don't have any green agenda. I don't have any agenda at all, other than telling the truth. The simple truth is that the free lunch is over. The age of cheap oil is over. The private automobile and suburbia are history.
All of the talk about alternative energy or green fuels is just a kind of denial -- refusal to admit that the system of cities and suburbs and globalization is fundamentally flawed and unworkable. People like to image that they can continue to commute to their split-level tract homes in the suburbs, by just filling their tanks with a slightly different fuel. Forget it. Not gonna happen. There isn't going to be any cheap energy at all.
Our country is going to go through very major changes, and it won't be pretty. Personally, I think too many people will stay in denial for too long, and not do anything to fix things until it's too late. What's coming will make the Great Depression look like a Sunday-school picnic.
But do your hear any of the major candidates for President talking about this? No way Jose'. They won't get elected if they tell the truth. That's the kind of national denial that is going on. And that's why nothing will be done.
if we were to have any Candidate with Integrity, he ( she help us) would be Honest enough to say that for the USA to become totally or partially independent of Middle East and Venezuela Oil imports would take at least 10-15 Years while we develop alternative Fuels ... Bur None have the BALLS to admit that in the meantime we couyld Drill for Domestic OIL and slowly wean us out of it... TOO Easy to do for the MORONS in Congress I guess... -
RE:
...we couyld Drill for Domestic OIL and slowly wean us out of it...
Alas, the USA is pretty empty now. That's why we are so dependent on foreign oil. The American oil companies have been sucking the USA dry for 150 years now. First Pennsylvania (remember Pennzoil?), then Texas and Oklahoma, then Huntington Beach, and a zillion other smaller places like New Mexico and Wyoming. And finally the north shore of Alaska.
All of the good oil fields in the USA have long since been discovered and sucked dry. What they are quibbling about now when they talk about drilling in ANWR or the Santa Barbara coastline or the Rocky Mountains is just a few dribs and drabs at the bottom of the barrel. There are no super-fields left.
So we can drill until there isn't a drinkable water table left in the USA, and we still won't get enough oil to satisfy our demands. -
@ Orange
RE:
Alas, the USA is pretty empty now. That's why we are so dependent on foreign oil. The American oil companies have been sucking the USA dry for 150 years now. First Pennsylvania (remember Pennzoil?), then Texas and Oklahoma, then Huntington Beach, and a zillion other smaller places like New Mexico and Wyoming. And finally the north shore of Alaska.
All of the good oil fields in the USA have long since been discovered and sucked dry. What they are quibbling about now when they talk about drilling in ANWR or the Santa Barbara coastline or the Rocky Mountains is just a few dribs and drabs at the bottom of the barrel. There are no super-fields left.
So we can drill until there isn't a drinkable water table left in the USA, and we still won't get enough oil to satisfy our demands.
You are totally wrong. We will never run out of oil. There are huge untapped oil fields in the USA and all over the globe. I know people in the industry. The US government has stockpiles of fuel that would last 260 years even if no new oil was brought in. We are not dependent on foreign oil. We're just draining their oil fields instead of ours. Within our generation we'll have affordable vehicles running on alternative fuels. Not ethanol, more likely they'll run on electricity in batteries or on hydrogen fuel cells. The problem with gas prices is refineries. Not oil. There are not enough refineries to process the oil to meet the demand. Until a couple years ago the US hadn't built any new refineries in more than a decade. You'll notice the price of gas went down briefly right after the refinery was built. Once the energy crisis hits us hard we'll build several nuclear power plants and we'll see it stabilize. -
@ atroxodisse
You are totally wrong. We will never run out of oil. There are huge untapped oil fields in the USA and all over the globe. I know people in the industry. The US government has stockpiles of fuel that would last 260 years even if no new oil was brought in. We are not dependent on foreign oil. We're just draining their oil fields instead of ours. Within our generation we'll have affordable vehicles running on alternative fuels. Not ethanol, more likely they'll run on electricity in batteries or on hydrogen fuel cells. The problem with gas prices is refineries. Not oil. There are not enough refineries to process the oil to meet the demand. Until a couple years ago the US hadn't built any new refineries in more than a decade. You'll notice the price of gas went down briefly right after the refinery was built. Once the energy crisis hits us hard we'll build several nuclear power plants and we'll see it stabilize.
Well said... You may be wasting time trying to convince some Uneducated minds but it has been reported that The western slopes of the Rockies in Colorado have Hundreds of oil well capped ( rem,ember when it was said that when Barrel oil prices would reach $ 65.00 the local wells would be profitable) and between ANWR and the outer Us Shelf, Sand stone, and Coal... If Politician MORONS would just disappear.. we could ouitproduce Arabia and Venezuela not to metion the Arctic region Mineral right ( read OIL) that Russia, Swede, and EU countries have made claims for while we sleep, on top of the Florida Keys where Cuba, China, russi are drilling 50 miles away... It's going to take a minimum 10-15 yeras to get off oil by developing Nclear.. Solar--Wind ( not cape Cod).. and infrastruture for Solar celles powered Autos, trucks and Buses.. SO WHY NOT USE OUR OIL instead of paying 400 Mill a day to ENEMIES??? BUT Pelosi and Loons are Sleeping in dream land... -
@ Orange
RE:
Alas, the USA is pretty empty now. That's why we are so dependent on foreign oil. The American oil companies have been sucking the USA dry for 150 years now. First Pennsylvania (remember Pennzoil?), then Texas and Oklahoma, then Huntington Beach, and a zillion other smaller places like New Mexico and Wyoming. And finally the north shore of Alaska.
All of the good oil fields in the USA have long since been discovered and sucked dry. What they are quibbling about now when they talk about drilling in ANWR or the Santa Barbara coastline or the Rocky Mountains is just a few dribs and drabs at the bottom of the barrel. There are no super-fields left.
So we can drill until there isn't a drinkable water table left in the USA, and we still won't get enough oil to satisfy our demands.
Get better Infoirmaution on the OIL supply still available... -
@ atroxodisse
You are totally wrong. We will never run out of oil. .
That is wishful thinking, not reality. All finite resources can be exhausted. You have to be one hard-core conspiracy theorist to imagine that we are sitting on a sea of oil and some nasty Democrat politicians or Sierra Club members just won't let the oil companies get it.
There is no big field of oil left in the USA. Why do you think they had to go all the way to the north shore of Alaska to find more oil?
Look at where they have been drilling for oil, and then use a little common sense and ask yourself why the oil companies went there:
the stormy North Sea, north of Britain. The Gulf of Mexico. The deserts of Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait, Yemen, UAR, Iraq, Iran. The north shore of Alaska.
The oil companies have been going to the ends of the earth to get more oil. They went there because there isn't any more oil here.
It would be easier and cheaper to just drill here, but they already did that, and used up that oil long ago. So now they have to go to other countries. -
@ Orange
That is wishful thinking, not reality. All finite resources can be exhausted. You have to be one hard-core conspiracy theorist to imagine that we are sitting on a sea of oil and some nasty Democrat politicians or Sierra Club members just won't let the oil companies get it.
There is no big field of oil left in the USA. Why do you think they had to go all the way to the north shore of Alaska to find more oil?
Look at where they have been drilling for oil, and then use a little common sense and ask yourself why the oil companies went there:
the stormy North Sea, north of Britain. The Gulf of Mexico. The deserts of Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait, Yemen, UAR, Iraq, Iran. The north shore of Alaska.
The oil companies have been going to the ends of the earth to get more oil. They went there because there isn't any more oil here.
It would be easier and cheaper to just drill here, but they already did that, and used up that oil long ago. So now they have to go to other countries.
They aren't drilling here because they aren't allowed to. They believe that drilling here could cause harm to the ecosystem so they are blocked from drilling here. We will never run out of oil because at some point we will have no use for it, not because it's infinite. -
@ atroxodisse
They aren't drilling here because they aren't allowed to. They believe that drilling here could cause harm to the ecosystem so they are blocked from drilling here. We will never run out of oil because at some point we will have no use for it, not because it's infinite.
AHH.. But Orange is STUCK on Keeping Pelosi who has lied over lower Oil Prices making additional idiotic plans for wasting Tax payers Cash. In fact since she and her COHORTS of the Broken promises have taken over gas prices have risen by $1.36 ... Today , finally coming out of her Ghirardelli HIGH .. she admitted that Using Corn for Ethanol was a Mistake ( she actually admitted that Food prices are affected by wasting corn for fuel) and is now proposing additional `Tax payers Waste of money to promote Grasses and wood based Ethanol... Next she might propose more Tax payers waste of money to promote Fish Scales based Ethanol... Makes you wonder if and when she had a CRP procedure done doesn't it???
The Other Hipocresy statement on the Senate floor from the LOON Donkeys by Sen Dorgen was that it'll take 10 yeras to get ANWR oil to flow... Totally forgetting that Had Bill Bubba not Vetoed the ANWR oil drilling bill 10 yeras ago.. well WHY can't we hold the Cretins accountable and vote them out en MASS??? Since Senators are National Officilas WE The People Should Vote for the ALL regardless of the State they Usurp... -
@ redhawk
AHH.. But Orange is STUCK on Keeping Pelosi who has lied over lower Oil Prices making additional idiotic plans for wasting Tax payers Cash. In fact since she and her COHORTS of the Broken promises have taken over gas prices have risen by $1.36 ... Today , finally coming out of her Ghirardelli HIGH .. she admitted that Using Corn for Ethanol was a Mistake ( she actually admitted that Food prices are affected by wasting corn for fuel) and is now proposing additional `Tax payers Waste of money to promote Grasses and wood based Ethanol... Next she might propose more Tax payers waste of money to promote Fish Scales based Ethanol... Makes you wonder if and when she had a CRP procedure done doesn't it???
The Other Hipocresy statement on the Senate floor from the LOON Donkeys by Sen Dorgen was that it'll take 10 yeras to get ANWR oil to flow... Totally forgetting that Had Bill Bubba not Vetoed the ANWR oil drilling bill 10 yeras ago.. well WHY can't we hold the Cretins accountable and vote them out en MASS??? Since Senators are National Officilas WE The People Should Vote for the ALL regardless of the State they Usurp...
I'm not sure why they're stuck on ethanol. Fuel cell and battery powered cars are much easier to power. All we need is more power plants to account for the increase in power usage. -
@ atroxodisse
I'm not sure why they're stuck on ethanol. Fuel cell and battery powered cars are much easier to power. All we need is more power plants to account for the increase in power usage.
I fully agree.. The Ultimate solution is for Fuel Cells for all but Airplane travel.. As i believed I said, it'll take about 10-15 years to develop this alternative solution ( replacements of vehicles, Hydrogen infrastructure distribution, public rapid transportation intra and inter neighboring States and SO ON0 In the meantime we acn wean out of oil dependency from Venezueal, and ME by using Canadian, Mexican USA available sources.. OIL, Coal OIL, Shale OIL, and so on and tell the Camel drivers and Poncho Chavez to POUND SAND .. in the case of ME.. Barter Wheat for Oil!!
Without our Cash they'll all be CHANGING ( yes Changing) and HOPING ( yes hoping) for our HELP!!!! -
@ Orange
That is wishful thinking, not reality. All finite resources can be exhausted. You have to be one hard-core conspiracy theorist to imagine that we are sitting on a sea of oil and some nasty Democrat politicians or Sierra Club members just won't let the oil companies get it.
There is no big field of oil left in the USA. Why do you think they had to go all the way to the north shore of Alaska to find more oil?
Look at where they have been drilling for oil, and then use a little common sense and ask yourself why the oil companies went there:
the stormy North Sea, north of Britain. The Gulf of Mexico. The deserts of Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait, Yemen, UAR, Iraq, Iran. The north shore of Alaska.
The oil companies have been going to the ends of the earth to get more oil. They went there because there isn't any more oil here.
It would be easier and cheaper to just drill here, but they already did that, and used up that oil long ago. So now they have to go to other countries.
Orange,
Why is it that being Stuck in Oblivion you seem unable to GRasp the Idea that WE have sufficient oil until Atomic, Fuel Cell, Solar, wind and Water power sysytems can be made viable and affordable .. It'll take 10-15 years and then OIL will be but someting to keep for lubricants and other minor uses.. SO I ask .. Why not Use up the Vast Natural Oil Resources that we have and reduce the Cost of Gas and food and the Waste of tax payers Money by Congress attempting to FIX a Broken Leg with a Band Aid ( Corn Ethanol?) -
@ redhawk
Orange,
Why is it that being Stuck in Oblivion you seem unable to GRasp the Idea that WE have sufficient oil until Atomic, Fuel Cell, Solar, wind and Water power sysytems can be made viable and affordable .
No, we don't That is the Big Fairy Tale that people wish to believe. The free lunch is over. The oil is running out worldwide, and China and India are just getting started on turning themselves into consumer societies like the USA. They want to consume and waste just like the USA has. There is simply not enough oil to go around now, and it's going to get worse.
All of the other stuff, like atomic energy or fuel cells or solar cells, depend on a high-tech infrastructure surviving and functioning, so that parts and tools and supplies are available. But nobody is building such an infrastructure now, and after the oil becomes scarce and prohibitively expensive, it will be too late. It is entirely possible that the year 2100 will resemble 1900 more than anything else. We won't lose all of our technology, just most of it. You will be able to listen to an old transistor radio while you cross the country in a coal-burning train.
By the way, today the Saudi King Abdullah rebuffed Pres. George W. Bush's pleas for more cheap oil, and said, “If you want more oil you need to buy it.”
See:
http://digitaljournal.com/article/254817-
@ Orange
No, we don't That is the Big Fairy Tale that people wish to believe. The free lunch is over. The oil is running out worldwide, and China and India are just getting started on turning themselves into consumer societies like the USA. They want to consume and waste just like the USA has. There is simply not enough oil to go around now, and it's going to get worse.
All of the other stuff, like atomic energy or fuel cells or solar cells, depend on a high-tech infrastructure surviving and functioning, so that parts and tools and supplies are available. But nobody is building such an infrastructure now, and after the oil becomes scarce and prohibitively expensive, it will be too late. It is entirely possible that the year 2100 will resemble 1900 more than anything else. We won't lose all of our technology, just most of it. You will be able to listen to an old transistor radio while you cross the country in a coal-burning train.
By the way, today the Saudi King Abdullah rebuffed Pres. George W. Bush's pleas for more cheap oil, and said, “If you want more oil you need to buy it.”
See:
http://digitaljournal.com/article/254817
TOO bad that you missed the Senate Panel questions to day where OIL Experts fromShell, Coal oil experts from variious States along with the Government officials all said that we have GREAT deposits in the Continent, Continental Shelf, Need for atomic power plants, Natural Gas , Shale oil, sufficient to PALE the Countries from which we are Importing.. So Amigo Get the Facts before spewing Nonsense...( C-Span Live 10 AM)
And Not to tax your capacity but coulkd it be that the Saudi refusal is about US Not Pumping OUR own OIL and being concerned at IF he Drains his wells he'd be in deep KAKA ...and then what would he have to live on? SAND???? -
@ atroxodisse
They aren't drilling here because they aren't allowed to. They believe that drilling here could cause harm to the ecosystem so they are blocked from drilling here. We will never run out of oil because at some point we will have no use for it, not because it's infinite.
You don't know the facts at all. You are spouting opinions based on nothing but wishful thinking. They ARE drilling, and the Bush administration has ripped up the land use rule book and allowed the oil companies to rape the Rocky Mountains. While people were arguing about drilling in Alaska's ANWR, the Bush administration let the oil companies go ahead and drill the Rocky Mountains for oil and natural gas. Go read about it, and see photographs of it in the National Geographic magazine:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0507/feature5/index.html
Not allowed to drill? Look at this picture:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0507/feature5/gallery2.html
National Geographic devoted a whole issue to cataloguing the damage to
America that was caused by allowing the oil companies to drill THOUSANDS of low-yield wells all over the western slope of the Rocky Mountains.
A study by the Wilderness Society, for example, estimates that of the 45,836 oil and gas leases supervised by the BLM, more than half were not producing as of last February. So what has been fueling the drive to poke new holes into the well-punctured crown of our continent when there already appears to be a surfeit of untapped leases?
45,836 is a lot of leases for drilling. That's the facts. The claim that the poor oil companies aren't allowed to drill in the good places is just completely false political propaganda.
The yield of those wells is low because there is no good oil field in the Rocky Mountains -- just lots of little pockets of gas and oil, dribs and drabs here and there. So they drill many many wells that just barely make a profit.
Again, there is no super-field in the Rocky Mountains. That is just another myth, and more wishful thinking.
Your last statement, about how we will somehow never run out of oil because we won't need it any more, is delusional. We use oil for both fuel and for the primary input feedstock to the chemical industry. Just about everything manufactured in the USA uses oil in one way or another -- plastics, pharmaceuticals, machines, microcomputers, eggs and butter and corn and rice -- everything. There is no magical substitute for oil, nor will there be. Now you are imagining that the brilliant scientists will save you by magically inventing an easy replacement for oil. That's the "Technological Fix". Not gonna happen. If you ask the real scientists, they will tell you that we are in trouble, and "It's a Hard Rain''s Gonna Fall".
Incidentally, Light Sweet Crude Oil hit a new record price of $126.87 today, after actually peaking at $127.80, after the Saudi King Abdullah told George W. Bush to take a hike when Bush begged for more oil. Next week, almost certainly even higher. Expect $200 per barrel oil by Christmas. -
@ redhawk
TOO bad that you missed the Senate Panel questions to day where OIL Experts fromShell, Coal oil experts from variious States along with the Government officials all said that we have GREAT deposits in the Continent, Continental Shelf, Need for atomic power plants, Natural Gas , Shale oil, sufficient to PALE the Countries from which we are Importing.. So Amigo Get the Facts before spewing Nonsense...( C-Span Live 10 AM)
And Not to tax your capacity but coulkd it be that the Saudi refusal is about US Not Pumping OUR own OIL and being concerned at IF he Drains his wells he'd be in deep KAKA ...and then what would he have to live on? SAND????
Please be more specific. What Senate Panel? Full names, please, and dates. I don't get C-Span, so I will have to read the transcripts. The fact that some shills from the oil companies went before a Senate panel and made some statements is not proof of anything other than the fact that some men said some things. They are of course paid to say those things.
There were also Senate panels where "experts" and "doctors" declared that smoking tobacco is not harmful, and nicotine is not addicting. So you really have to ask who those "experts" are, and what ax they have to grind. -
|
Email
Print
Share
