Printable View
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.
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.
What's driving up oil prices again? Wall Street, of course
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/0...ces-again.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
US oil consumption has fallen, but global oil consumption has not fallen nearly as much.Quote:
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/2010/04/0...#ixzz0kFHJ0TT0
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.
Explore, yes. But where is it said they can pump it if they find any?Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
I guess RandomGuy is another Malthusian. Man, that group has never overreacted in the past.
we feel the same about the tea bagger party..Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Doh!
Tea Party 48%, Obama 44%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/...ril_5_2010.jpg
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
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Strategy
In two brief sentences, you managed to garnish a freshman mistake with a logical fallacy. Nice work, D.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
The auto-pwnage never gets old. :tu
Dude, do you ever really pay attention to anything I say in the energy/oil threads?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Or do you just enjoy making up straw man logical fallacies in your spare time?
This, from the "Malthusians" on the US Joint Forces Command:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...duction-supplyQuote:
The US military has warned that surplus 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 and 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 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 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, 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.
Just to be clear on this one:Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
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.
Obama opens more offshore oil drilling:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/us...ctic.html?_r=0Quote:
The Obama administration on Monday gave conditional approval to allow Shell to start drilling for oil 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, 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.
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. The operator of a drill ship hired by Shell also pleaded guilty 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. “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 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...ling.html?_r=0