Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling

[DarrinS]

Drill Baby Drill!


Wait a minute. Huh?


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html?hp






WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border.

The environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected and no drilling would be allowed under the plan, officials said. But large tracts in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska — nearly 130 million acres — would be eligible for exploration and drilling after extensive studies.

The proposal is to be announced by President Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on Wednesday, but administration officials agreed to preview the details on the condition that they not be identified.

The proposal is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports, generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases and help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation.

But while Mr. Obama has staked out middle ground on other environmental matters — supporting nuclear power, for example — the sheer breadth of the offshore drilling decision will take some of his supporters aback. And it is no sure thing that it will win support for a climate bill from undecided senators close to the oil industry, like Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, or Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana.

The Senate is expected to take up a climate bill in the next few weeks — the last chance to enact such legislation before midterm election concerns take over. Mr. Obama and his allies in the Senate have already made significant concessions on coal and nuclear power to try to win votes from Republicans and moderate Democrats. The new plan now grants one of the biggest items on the oil industry’s wish list — access to vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling.

But even as Mr. Obama curries favors with pro-drilling interests, he risks a backlash from some coastal governors, senators and environmental advocates, who say that the relatively small amounts of oil to be gained in the offshore areas are not worth the environmental risks.

The Obama administration’s plan adopts some drilling proposals floated by President George W. Bush near the end of his tenure, including opening much of the Atlantic and Arctic Coasts. Those proposals were challenged in court on environmental grounds and set aside by President Obama shortly after he took office.

Unlike the Bush plan, however, Mr. Obama’s proposal would put Bristol Bay, home to major Alaskan commercial fisheries and populations of endangered whales, off limits to oil rigs.

Actual drilling in much of the newly opened areas, if it takes place, would not begin for years.

Mr. Obama said several times during his presidential campaign that he supported expanded offshore drilling. He noted in his State of the Union address in January that weaning the country from imported oil would require “tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.”

Perhaps in anticipation of controversy, the new policy has been closely held within the administration. White House and Interior Department officials began briefing members of Congress and local officials in affected states late Tuesday.

It is not known how much potential fuel lies in the areas opened to exploration, although according to Interior Department estimates there could be as much as a three-year supply of recoverable oil and more than two years’ worth of natural gas, at current rates of consumption. But those estimates are based on seismic data that is, in some cases, more than 30 years old.

The first lease sale off the coast of Virginia could occur as early as next year in a triangular tract 50 miles off the coast that had already been approved for development but was held up by a court challenge and additional Interior Department review, officials said.

But as a result of the Obama decision, the Interior Department will spend several years conducting geologic and environmental studies along the rest of the southern and central Atlantic Seaboard. If a tract is deemed suitable for development, it is listed for sale in a competitive bidding system. The next lease sales — if any are authorized by the Interior Department — would not be held before 2012.

The eastern Gulf of Mexico tract that would be offered for lease is adjacent to an area that already contains thousands of wells and hundreds of drilling platforms. The eastern Gulf area is believed to contain as much as 3.5 billion barrels of oil and 17 trillion cubic feet of gas, the richest single tract that would be open to drilling under the Obama plan.

Drilling there has been strongly opposed by officials from both political parties in Alabama and Florida who fear damage to coastlines, fisheries, popular beaches and wildlife. Interior Department officials said no wells would be allowed within 125 miles of the Florida and Alabama coasts, making them invisible from shore.

The Interior Department and the Pentagon are discussing possible restrictions on oil and gas operations in some areas off Virginia and Florida, home to some of the nation’s biggest Navy and Air Force facilities. States are also likely to claim rights to the revenues from oil and gas deposits within 3 to 12 miles of shore and to some portion of lease proceeds, officials said.

Mr. Salazar developed the offshore drilling plan after conducting four public meetings over the past year in Alaska, California, Louisiana and New Jersey. The Interior Department received more than 500,000 public comments on the issue.

Mr. Salazar has said that he hoped to rebalance the nation’s oil and gas policy to find a middle ground between the “drill here drill now” advocacy of many oil industry advocates and the preservationist impulse to block oil exploration beneath virtually all public lands and waters.

He has called the offshore drilling plan a new chapter in the nation’s search for a comprehensive energy policy that can open new areas to oil and gas development “in the right way and in the right places,” according to an aide.

In many of the newly opened areas, drilling would begin only after the completion of geologic studies, environmental impact statements, court challenges and public lease sales. Much of the oil and gas may not be recoverable at current prices and may be prohibitively expensive even if oil prices spike as they did in the summer of 2008.

At the Wednesday event, Mr. Obama is also expected to announce two other initiatives to reduce oil imports, an agreement between the Pentagon and the Agriculture Department to use more biofuels in military vehicles and the purchase of thousands of hybrid vehicles for the federal motor pool.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Finally you agree with Obama on something. Now let's see you give him credit.

[Stringer_Bell]

I don't know enough about this stuff to have a valid opinion, but I'm interested to see if "the right" gives Barry a hi-5 over this initiative.

[DarrinS]

Finally you agree with Obama on something. Now let's see you give him credit.


I give him credit. But, I don't think it's something they believe in so much as they are smart to take away a talking point of their political opponents.


Come November, it will be entirely about health care and fiscal issues.

EDIT> Also jobs and taxes.

[whottt]

That'll solve global warming fer sure.

Seriously though...

Let's see:
Staying in Iraq and Afghanistan - check
Increasing the deficit - check
Serving Big Oil - check
Diplomatic disaster(and this one is the surprise) - check
Corporate servitude on about 15 different levels(Health Care, Digital Piracy) - check

Shit, Obama is a better at this than Bush was....except for the job creation thing.

It's not so much that I don't want to give him credit for doing the same shit Bush did...it's just that Bush doing these things made him tantamount to the worst leader in history according to Dems.


I guess we'll give him credit for it...will you now shut the fuck and stop bitching about wars, global warming, the deficit, spending, corporatism and all that other stuff you continue bitch to the Republicans about as your guy continues and expands on those policies?

He even abuses his power better than Bush did. I mean Bush wussed out and actually lied to get his agenda past the Dems(or so they claim) Obama and Dems just went outright and told the Republicans and 50 something million Americans to go fuck themselves....


If he joins the KKK then I'll praise him :tu

[Bartleby]

The Democratic Party = GOP lite

It has been since Clinton, but somehow that seems to get lost in all the hysteria about Marxism and socialism.

[whottt]

Oh I'd call them GOP heavy.

I know I just saw Obama rattling a saber at Iran :tu

And just because Obama is doing all this shit doesn't mean he's not a socialist. Socialist just means he wants to eliminate the middle class.


And no politician that claims(or appears) to be a marxist, socialist, or communist actually fits those terms are they intended to mean. IF they were truly any of those things they wouldn't be politicians.

[scott]

And just because Obama is doing all this shit doesn't mean he's not a socialist. Socialist just means he wants to eliminate the middle class.

Actally, socialist would mean he wants there to only be a middle class. But, whatever.

[rjv]

The Democratic Party = GOP lite

It has been since Clinton, but somehow that seems to get lost in all the hysteria about Marxism and socialism.

agreed, and how it is that there is a belief amongst so many people that there is a legitimate dichotomy between the 2 parties is beyond me.

no surprise here that obama has made this move.

[balli]

This is horrible. And


I'm interested to see if "the right" gives Barry a hi-5 over this initiative.
Fuck no. A week, a month, a year from now the right will still be clamoring for his head. Literally.

[jack sommerset]

United States Drilling Co. Obama has to pay for health care.

[whottt]

Actally, socialist would mean he wants there to only be a middle class. But, whatever.

No, socialist means they want 2 classes, an extremely powerful minority elite that weilds total authority over virtually every aspect of our lives, and an extremely poor and powerless lowerclass...with a nice literacy rate. Notice I didn't say good healthcare.

[coyotes_geek]

I don't know enough about this stuff to have a valid opinion, but I'm interested to see if "the right" gives Barry a hi-5 over this initiative.

I'd say there will be about as many people on "the right" giving Barry a hi-5 over this as there will be people on "the left" admitting that Bush & company were on to something when they were pushing for this.

[DarrinS]

It will be interesting to see if Al Gore has any kind of public response to this. He has to walk a very fine line. On one hand, he has to say something negative about it to maintain credibility among his green minions. On the other hand, having more carbon out there to regulate/swap is in his best financial interests.

[ElNono]

I was hoping he would penalize trading on energy futures as part of this overhaul, but I don't see such a thing. I don't even see what's the economical gain to the government, outside of selling the excavation licenses (and the obvious upcoming big oil fundraiser).

[coyotes_geek]

I was hoping he would penalize trading on energy futures as part of this overhaul, but I don't see such a thing.

There's no point to it. It's a global market and thanks to the internet anyone can trade energy futures anywhere. If the U.S. tries to restrict energy futures trading on it's markets, a different market is only a mouse-click away.

[ElNono]

There's no point to it. It's a global market and thanks to the internet anyone can trade energy futures anywhere. If the U.S. tries to restrict energy futures trading on it's markets, a different market is only a mouse-click away.

Sure. But America remains one of the largest (if not the largest) oil consumer in the world. The SEC and CFTC already regulate futures and derivatives (http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/EAB1D60E-C2CE-47DC-BEB4-2D6B54759878.cfm). I would have preferred further regulation to close the gap on prices being so volatile on speculation alone.

[coyotes_geek]

I would have preferred further regulation to close the gap on prices being so volatile on speculation alone.

That's simply not feasible. The U.S. government could flat out ban speculators from trading in U.S. energy markets and whoever would be left on those U.S. markets would still be having to buy and sell oil on a global market where the price is influenced by speculators.

[clambake]

he never said there would be no more drilling.

[scott]

No, socialist means they want 2 classes, an extremely powerful minority elite that weilds total authority over virtually every aspect of our lives, and an extremely poor and powerless lowerclass...with a nice literacy rate. Notice I didn't say good healthcare.

Sorry, forgot to translate words to the post-modern "whatever we want it to mean" definitions. I was going by the classical definition of socialist, since I speak English and not Politicish.

[whottt]

I was going by the classical definition of socialist, since I speak English and not Politicish.

My bad, I was going by what they actually are.

[Bartleby]

No, socialist means they want 2 classes, an extremely powerful minority elite that weilds total authority over virtually every aspect of our lives, and an extremely poor and powerless lowerclass...with a nice literacy rate. Notice I didn't say good healthcare.


Two classes, an extremely powerful minority elite and an extremely poor and powerless lowerclass--that's pretty much the trajectory of unfettered capitalism (but without the nice literacy rate).

Socialism implies a classless society. Whether or not it's actually realizable is debatable. Most of the states that people associate with socialism today are really mixed economic models.

[scott]

My bad, I was going by what they actually are.

If you call an orange an apple because someone told you they're apples... well, then you're just an idiot.

[SnakeBoy]

Socialism implies a classless society. Whether or not it's actually realizable is debatable.

How is it "debatable"? Socialism has been tried in many forms and to many degrees and has never produced a classless society.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It will be interesting to see if Al Gore has any kind of public response to this. He has to walk a very fine line. On one hand, he has to say something negative about it to maintain credibility among his green minions. On the other hand, having more carbon out there to regulate/swap is in his best financial interests.

why would al gore care? why are you so obsessed with gore?

[whottt]

If you call an orange an apple because someone told you they're apples... well, then you're just an idiot.

I don't. I just know there's a difference between a definition and a fruit.

[coyotes_geek]

why are you so obsessed with gore?

Why are you so obsessed with darrin?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why are you so obsessed with darrin?

I suppose you have no idea either. That's ok it was stupid statement on his part. Why are you obsessed with me?

[coyotes_geek]

I suppose you have no idea either. That's ok it was stupid statement on his part. Why are you obsessed with me?

I asked you first.

As for Gore, why shouldn't it be fair game to wonder what he thinks about Obama's decision, given Gore's opposition to offshore drilling and Obama's vocal support of Gore's efforts?

[DarrinS]

I asked you first.

As for Gore, why shouldn't it be fair game to wonder what he thinks about Obama's decision, given Gore's opposition to offshore drilling and Obama's vocal support of Gore's efforts?


I thought it was a fair point, given that young enrivonmentalists are already squealing about it.


Our Generation Screwed Over by Obama's Offshore Drilling Plan (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morgan-goodwin/our-generation-screwed-ov_b_519625.html)

[coyotes_geek]

I thought it was a fair point, given that young enrivonmentalists are already squealing about it.


Our Generation Screwed Over by Obama's Offshore Drilling Plan (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morgan-goodwin/our-generation-screwed-ov_b_519625.html)

It's absolutely a fair point. IIRC, back during the campaign Obama was even talking about making Gore part of his administration.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's absolutely a fair point. IIRC, back during the campaign Obama was even talking about making Gore part of his administration.


no one on the left cares so why should you?

[whottt]

Two classes, an extremely powerful minority elite and an extremely poor and powerless lowerclass--that's pretty much the trajectory of unfettered capitalism (but without the nice literacy rate).

Except that the stratification is worse in socialism, and unlike capitalism usually has to be maintained through military force once people realize that.





Socialism implies a classless society. Whether or not it's actually realizable is debatable.

It's not if it's imposed. The second you impose it the imposers because the upperclass. Extreme.




Most of the states that people associate with socialism today are really mixed economic models.

Socialism works quite well under a Democratic and larger capitalistic umbrella, it works even better if you don't use the government to implement it.

[coyotes_geek]

no one on the left cares so why should you?

Might have something to do with me feeling capable of thinking for myself. A concept that apparently is above your head, given your response.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Might have something to do with me feeling capable of thinking for myself. A concept that apparently is above your head, given your response.

Ok, so your going to worry about something that means nothing...smart move... get back to your thinking...

[coyotes_geek]

I like how "the left" tells GGA that what Gore thinks about all this is not important, but Darrin's motivations behind wondering what Gore thinks are.

[coyotes_geek]

Ok, so your going to worry about something that means nothing...smart move... get back to your thinking...

So for those scoring at home:

Worrying about what Gore thinks about Obama's decision to expand offshore drilling = not important.

Worrying about whether or not Darrin gives Obama credit for his decision to expand offshore drilling = important.

Worrying about why Darrin cares what Gore thinks = important.

Worrying about anything the left doesn't care about = not important.

Thinking for yourself = not important.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So for those scoring at home:

Worrying about what Gore thinks about Obama's decision to expand offshore drilling = not important.

Worrying about whether or not Darrin gives Obama credit for his decision to expand offshore drilling = important.

Worrying about why Darrin cares what Gore thinks = important.

Worrying about anything the left doesn't care about = not important.

Thinking for yourself = not important.

thinking about something that doesn't matter = coyotes_geek :lmao

[coyotes_geek]

thinking about something that doesn't matter = coyotes_geek :lmao

Awesome. The guy with the avatar that says "i hate dumb people" is laughing at me for thinking. :lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

Awesome. The guy with the avatar that says "i hate dumb people" is laughing at me for thinking. :lol

thinking about something that doesn't matter is dumb..:lmao

[coyotes_geek]

thinking about something that doesn't matter is dumb..:lmao

These matter.


Finally you agree with Obama on something. Now let's see you give him credit.


why would al gore care? why are you so obsessed with gore?

[Wild Cobra]

Finally you agree with Obama on something. Now let's see you give him credit.
What are the details first?

Are the fees so high as not to be worth it, making it another political stunt?

I will give Obama credit for this if he did change his mind. Remember however, it is his flip-flop. Not mine.

[Wild Cobra]

United States Drilling Co. Obama has to pay for health care.
Wouldn't that be a gas if any oil company wanting to drill had to be nationalized...

[LnGrrrR]

What are the details first?

Are the fees so high as not to be worth it, making it another political stunt?

I will give Obama credit for this if he did change his mind. Remember however, it is his flip-flop. Not mine.

:lol

Don't worry WC, I think everyone recognizes this as one of quite a few flip-flops Obama's made ie. wiretapping, detainees, public option, etc etc.

[Winehole23]

Wouldn't that be a gas if any oil company wanting to drill had to be nationalized...You only wish. Not gonna happen.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

Don't worry WC, I think everyone recognizes this as one of quite a few flip-flops Obama's made ie. wiretapping, detainees, public option, etc etc.
Don't forget. He didn't commit to drilling. This was actually a win for the left. He allows for exploration... no mention of drilling, and put even more area off limits at the same time!

[Wild Cobra]

You only wish. Not gonna happen.
I wish no such thing. I just see the Marxist in the man.

[Winehole23]

Wouldn't that be a gas?

[Wild Cobra]

Wouldn't that be a gas?
I know, weak pun. However, they do get natural gas also. Not just crude.

[RandomGuy]

F-QA2rkpBSY

[RandomGuy]

Pb3JI8F9LQQ

[RandomGuy]

CFyOw9IgtjY

[RandomGuy]

yQd-VGYX3-E

[RandomGuy]

qHuwgxrTKPo

[RandomGuy]

-3y7UlHdhAU

[RandomGuy]

RyseLQVpJEI

[RandomGuy]

VoiiVnQadwE

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=325

[RandomGuy]

Watch it all or not. The simple, mathmatical inexorability of flattened consumption will happen in your lifetime, or your childrens lifetime.

Either we can deal with that rationally while we have the chance to do so easily, or wait until things get waaay more expensive.

[boutons_deux]

OK, so Magic Negro is gonna let them explore and drill.

In return, kill all tax breaks and subsidies for all oilcos.

Private risk, private loss.

No more private gain, public loss.

If they strike an Iraq's worth oil in the ocean on subsidized exploration, you can be damn sure, just like the Banksters, the taxpayers won't get ANY return breaks.

[boutons_deux]

What's driving up oil prices again? Wall Street, of course


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/01/91487/whats-driving-up-oil-prices-again.html

[RandomGuy]

What's driving up oil prices again? Wall Street, of course


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/01/91487/whats-driving-up-oil-prices-again.html



WASHINGTON — Oil consumption has fallen, demand from U.S. motorists for gasoline is flat at best and refiners that turn crude into fuel are operating well below capacity. Yet oil prices keep marching toward $90 a barrel, pushing gasoline toward $3 a gallon in many markets, and prompting American drivers to ask, "What gives?"

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/01/91487/whats-driving-up-oil-prices-again.html#ixzz0kFHJ0TT0


US oil consumption has fallen, but global oil consumption has not fallen nearly as much.

One has to bear in mind that China's oil consumption is going up rather quickly, and almost 100% of that consumption MUST be imported.

There has been some fair capital entry into derivative markets for oil, but the best estimates I have seen is that they don't effect overall prices nearly as much as some think.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, so Magic Negro is gonna let them explore and drill.

Explore, yes. But where is it said they can pump it if they find any?

[DarrinS]

I guess RandomGuy is another Malthusian. Man, that group has never overreacted in the past.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I guess RandomGuy is another Malthusian. Man, that group has never overreacted in the past.

we feel the same about the tea bagger party..

[DarrinS]

we feel the same about the tea bagger party..


Doh!

Tea Party 48%, Obama 44% (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44)


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/april_2010/obama_approval_index_april_5_2010/301633-2-eng-US/obama_approval_index_april_5_2010.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

I did a little looking around. Found nothing definitive on actually being able to pump any oil from newly opened areas for exploration. They elude to it, but don't actually say it. Besides, it's a plan. Still has to have approvals not yet given.

Obama Administration Announces Comprehensive Strategy for Energy Security (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/obama-administration-announces-comprehensive-strategy-energy-security)

Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Strategy (http://www.doi.gov/news/doinews/2010_03_31_news.cfm)

[Winehole23]

I guess RandomGuy is another Malthusian.Man, that group has never overreacted in the past.In two brief sentences, you managed to garnish a freshman mistake with a logical fallacy. Nice work, D.

[Winehole23]

The auto-pwnage never gets old. :tu

[RandomGuy]

I guess RandomGuy is another Malthusian. Man, that group has never overreacted in the past.

Dude, do you ever really pay attention to anything I say in the energy/oil threads?

Or do you just enjoy making up straw man logical fallacies in your spare time?

[Winehole23]

This, from the "Malthusians" on the US Joint Forces Command:


The US military (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-military) has warned that surplus oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/oil) production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.


The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.


"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.


It adds: "While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/china) and India (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/india)."


The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with "an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide out future force developments."


The warning is the latest in a series from around the world that has turned peak oil – the moment when demand exceeds supply – from a distant threat to a more immediate risk.


The Wicks Review on UK energy policy published last summer effectively dismissed fears but Lord Hunt, the British energy minister, met concerned industrialists two weeks ago (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/21/peak-oil-summit) in a sign that it is rapidly changing its mind on the seriousness of the issue.


The Paris-based International Energy Agency remains confident that there is no short-term risk of oil shortages but privately some senior officials have admitted there is considerable disagreement internally about this upbeat stance.


Future fuel supplies are of acute importance to the US army because it is believed to be the biggest single user of petrol in the world. BP (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/bp) chief executive, Tony Hayward, said recently that there was little chance of crude from the carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands being banned in America because the US military like to have local supplies rather than rely on the politically unstable Middle East.


But there are signs that the US Department of Energy might also be changing its stance on peak oil. In a recent interview with French newspaper, Le Monde, Glen Sweetnam (http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/03/25/washington-considers-a-decline-of-world-oil-production-as-of-2011/), main oil adviser to the Obama administration, admitted that "a chance exists that we may experience a decline" of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 if the investment was not forthcoming.


Lionel Badal, a post-graduate student at Kings College, London, who has been researching peak oil theories, said the review by the American military moves the debate on.


"It's surprising to see that the US Army, unlike the US Department of Energy, publicly warns of major oil shortages in the near-term. Now it could be interesting to know on which study the information is based on," he said.


"The Energy Information Administration (of the department of energy) has been saying for years that Peak Oil was "decades away". In light of the report from the US Joint Forces Command, is the EIA still confident of its previous highly optimistic conclusions?"


The Joint Operating Environment report paints a bleak picture of what can happen on occasions when there is serious economic upheaval. "One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest," it points out.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply

[RandomGuy]

I guess RandomGuy is another Malthusian. Man, that group has never overreacted in the past.

Just to be clear on this one:

I do NOT see the Malthusian sorts of death spirals common in some of the more alarmist websites that deal with Peak Oil.

I do see oil getting steadily more expensive at a faster and faster rate, generally causing energy to get much more expensive in terms of joules per inflation-adjusted dollar over time.

There WILL be a great deal of economic churn from this, as competing sources of energy get comparatively more competitive.

Renewables energy sectors like solar and wind will grow a LOT. Given that they represent such a small part of our energy mix today, that makes for a LOT of growth there.

I believe that the costs of changing our energy mix will be much greater in the future than they are now. Energy is relatively cheap now, but will not be so in 20-40 years.

This means the opportunity costs involved in waiting until oil gets hideously expensive probably outweigh the costs of preparing to convert now. A solid chunk of money should be spent on R & D, more so than we are spending now, so we can shake out the best ideas sooner, and go with that.

Doing so will give us a ready-made roadmap, so that businesses can plan and allocate capital more efficiently than having some chaotic rush at a time where costs are high.

[Winehole23]

Obama opens more offshore oil drilling:


The Obama administration on Monday gave conditional approval to allow Shell to start drilling for oil (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/oil-petroleum-and-gasoline/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) off the Alaskan coast this summer, a major victory for the petroleum industry and a devastating blow to environmentalists.The decision adds a complex new chapter to the legacy of President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who has pursued the most ambitious environmental agenda of any president but has sought to balance those moves by opening up untouched federal waters to new oil and gas drilling.


Shell has sought for years to drill in the icy waters of the Chukchi Sea. Federal scientists believe the region could hold up to 15 billion barrels of oil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/us/white-house-gives-conditional-approval-for-shell-to-drill-in-arctic.html?_r=0

[boutons_deux]

Shell’s Record Adds to the Anger of Those Opposing Arctic Drilling

They said that the company’s track record in the Arctic should rule out another chance for it. Shell tried to drill in the Arctic in 2012, and the company’s multibillion-dollar drilling rig, the Kulluk, ran aground (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/the-wreck-of-the-kulluk.html). The operator of a drill ship hired by Shell also pleaded guilty (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/12/08/us/ap-us-arctic-offshore-drilling-charges.html)to eight felony offenses and agreed to pay $12.2 million over shoddy record-keeping that covered up hazardous conditions and jury-rigged equipment that discharged polluted water.

“Shell has already proven itself not up to the challenge of development in the Arctic Ocean,” said Franz Matzner, the director of the Beyond Oil Initiative at the Natural Resources Defense Council (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/natural_resources_defense_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org). “But it’s not just Shell. The fact is, there’s no safe way to pursue oil exploration in the frozen wastes of the Arctic Ocean.”

Even some competing oil company executives openly wonder why Shell is trying again.

“It’s too complicated,” Claudio Descalzi, the chief executive of the Italian oil company Eni, said in a recent interview. The company allowed its lease in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea to expire without drilling. “Everything that is too complicated is too expensive and too risky — and my job is to reduce risk,” he said.

Patrick Pouyanné, the chief executive of Total, a French oil giant that produces natural gas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/natural-gas/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) in the Russian Arctic, also expressed doubts about drilling for oil in the Alaskan Arctic with prices virtually cut in half in recent months.

“At $50 a barrel, it does not make any sense,” he said in an interview. “These are high-cost resources.” He added that a spill “could be very detrimental for the reputation of a company.”

After Shell’s problems, ConocoPhillips and the Norwegian oil giant Statoil suspended their Alaskan Arctic drilling plans.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/us/shells-record-adds-to-the-anger-of-those-opposing-arctic-drilling.html?_r=0