Oil at $87 and rising - still no alternative energy

I don't think it is extreme to drill for more oil. Look, we've argued over this several times, but I am very, very comfortable that history will prove me to be correct. It is one of the key differences between Republicans and Democrats as well, and again, I think the Democrats are very, very wrong about this, and the future will prove it.

You talk about appealing to extremes. Just because I am in favor of drilling for more oil does not in any way indicate I am against development of alternatives. I am fully in favor of that, but it is logical to believe we need both.

okie wrote:

I don't think it is extreme to drill for more oil. Look, we've argued over this several times, but I am very, very comfortable that history will prove me to be correct. It is one of the key differences between Republicans and Democrats as well, and again, I think the Democrats are very, very wrong about this, and the future will prove it.

You talk about appealing to extremes. Just because I am in favor of drilling for more oil does not in any way indicate I am against development of alternatives. I am fully in favor of that, but it is logical to believe we need both.

Appealing to Extremes is saying 'we shouldn't bother filling up our tank when it empties, blah blah.'

We need oil in the short run. We need it in the long run, but not to burn up in cars and such; to make things out of the petroleum. It would be far better for us to suck it up and start looking for the alternatives, then it would to sink tons of time and resources into drilling new wells now.

The truth is that we aren't even so short on oil this moment that we can't cope; we are making enough gasoline. International strife such as warmongering by your party has risen the cost as people are worried about the supplies being cut off. We aren't a patient which is going to die if he doesn't get another pint; we're a patient who has a long-term addiction, and need to get about fighting that addiction through new behaviors instead of devoting more and more time into furthering it.

Cycloptichorn

You've hit on a very important point. International strife will only increase as oil becomes tighter in supply, and we are going to be very sorry indeed when we wake up to realize we should have tried to develop more of our own supply to protect ourselves or make ourselves less vulnerable to International competition. It is not reasonable to believe we can become oil self sufficient, but we can improve the situation over what it will become if we don't try. We are in the process of shooting ourselves in the foot - big time - and is so frustrating to see us do it. The handwriting is on the wall.

Under you guys reasoning, since filling up my car will only last me maybe 400 miles, it is stupid to go to the trouble of going to the gas station when the tank gets low, after all it will only last a very short time. It is a waste of time.

It is also a waste of time to study for one test in the 1st grade, as it will matter little to nothing in terms of graduating from high school.

Do you get the picture? I think you are repeating the mantra of environmentalists and others in regard to oil, and you simply are looking at the situation in a totally wrong way. There has never been an oil field found anywhere in the world that can fuel the entire world very long, that is just the nature of the oil business. Unless you look at maybe the Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia.

Oil exploration must be done to find one field, then another, then another. We really do not know at this point what potential oil still lies undiscovered, but to discard the one greatest energy option ever discovered in the history of the world is to put it mildly, economic suicide and absolute stupidity.

And why do you believe that the US-oil price will be detached (then) from international price? Why isn't it now?

okie wrote:

You've hit on a very important point. International strife will only increase as oil becomes tighter in supply, and we are going to be very sorry indeed when we wake up to realize we should have tried to develop more of our own supply to protect ourselves or make ourselves less vulnerable to International competition. It is not reasonable to believe we can become oil self sufficient, but we can improve the situation over what it will become if we don't try. We are in the process of shooting ourselves in the foot - big time - and is so frustrating to see us do it. The handwriting is on the wall.

How many percent of the US-need on oil could be delivered from own oil fields, you think, okie?

And why do you believe that the US-oil price will be detached (then) from international price? Why isn't it now?

no its you who doesnt get it okie. I never mentioned green issues here. Before you can extract oil you have to find it. We have not been finding much over the last 20 years, certainly not enough to keep pace with accelerating demand. There will always be some more finds, but most unlikely really huge fields. Because the huge fields are simply unmissable and in fact have not been missed. We are beginning to scrape the barrel.

Okie, it's a question of diminishing returns. No matter how much oil we find now, we won't find enough to keep us going - and if we stay stuck to these models, the pollution becomes a real issue (it already IS a real issue).

What's better for the addict - to keep searching for more of the drug, or to find a better lifestyle?

I'm not against people finding more oil - like I said, we NEED oil. But our finding of more oil has nothing to do with our urgent need to come up with better transportation and energy technologies. I know you say that the technology 'isn't there yet' but it's right on the edge. Greater emphasis would get us there rapidly. Finding oil fields shouldn't reduce that emphasis at all.

Cycloptichorn

Why take the defeatist attitude

Quote:

And why do you believe that the US-oil price will be detached (then) from international price? Why isn't it now?

oil being a "commodity" it would seem to be next to impossible to bring the oil price down , unless supply increases or demand decreases.
a government might try to control the price of oil but investors in the oil companies would quickly stop investing in them - so they'd be starved of capital .

let's just use an example :
- pension fund invests in oil company ,
- goverment decrees reduction in oil price resulting in lower dividends from the oil company to pensionfund ,
- pensionfund will have to lower pension payouts to its members (surely not very popular) ,
- pensionfund will sell its investments in oil company at a loss and invest in companies with better payouts ,
- oil company will have to find new investors willing to invest and receive lower return - not many investors would be interested in that .
***END OF STORY***

of course we all have the option of bringing down the consumption of oil .
even drivers who like driving big SUV'S and trucks now have the option of purchasing one of general motors' new hybrids , such as the GMC YUKON ; this big rig gives 25 % better gas mileage than a standard v-8 yukon - pretty impressive imo .
anyone putting a lot of mileage on their vehicles would probably do well to consider one of those new rigs .
hbg

GMC YUKON HYBRID

from okie's post :

Quote:

Why take the defeatist attitude

no need to take defeatist attitude , just use less oil (gasoline) .
its quite easily achieved : see my earlier post .
hbg

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okie, it's a question of diminishing returns. No matter how much oil we find now, we won't find enough to keep us going - and if we stay stuck to these models, the pollution becomes a real issue (it already IS a real issue).

What's better for the addict - to keep searching for more of the drug, or to find a better lifestyle?

I'm not against people finding more oil - like I said, we NEED oil. But our finding of more oil has nothing to do with our urgent need to come up with better transportation and energy technologies. I know you say that the technology 'isn't there yet' but it's right on the edge. Greater emphasis would get us there rapidly. Finding oil fields shouldn't reduce that emphasis at all.

Cycloptichorn

Okay, you admit we need oil. Lets go find as much as we can so that we have less pressure on technologies that have not yet been perfected. As we speak, $90 oil is spurring alot of work on alternatives. It is happening, but only a fool would hope that we can wean ourselves from oil instantaneously. All reasonable projections see oil as important for the next 40 or 50 years at least.

This issue is a great example of liberal flawed logic, lack of confidence in the free market, and the liberal mindset of shooting oneself in the foot. And also the foolhardy mindset that drilling destroys the environment, which is another myth.

This issue will be your achilles heel in the future, count on it. When the crunch becomes worse, the blame falls squarely in the Democrats lap. They complain but do nothing practical. The best that Hillary proposes is to rob profits from private companies that can be better used by private companies to actually produce energy, for what, to let the government waste the money on "research" into alternatives as directed from Central Planning. Again, let the market solve the problem, and we can avert another government boondoggle. Private enterprise is beginning to solve the problem now, just allow it to work.

If by some miracle, your magic bullet to eliminate the need for the oil, nothing bad will happen to the environment there, so you can quit worrying about that.

Fine, use less oil, but the population keeps growing, so even if you and I use less oil, overall oil consumption is likely to grow, or at least not drop very much. The country using alot less oil is not easily achieved at all. If you have actual numbers tied to reality, I would like to see them. You guys need to be realistic and look at the projections and numbers.

okie wrote :

Quote:

Fine, use less oil, but the population keeps growing, so even if you and I use less oil, overall oil consumption is likely to grow, or at least not drop very much. The country using alot less oil is not easily achieved at all. If you have actual numbers tied to reality, I would like to see them. You guys need to be realistic and look at the projections and numbers.

a CONSUMPTION REDUCTION of 25 % for the first edition of this vehicle sounds pretty impressive to me .
i don't have much doubt that future models - particularly if they adopt diesel engines - will probably reduce consumption by 50% .
certainly looks like a reasonable INTERIM solution to me .
so even if the oil price should double , the driver wouldn't pay any more than now .
i doubt that GM would have invested heavily in hybrids if they didn't think there would be both a demand AND a profit in it .
certainly , even better solutions will be required in the future , but looking back even just over the last 50 years , there have been great improvements and innovations . i see no reason to believe that this trend will be slowing down anytime soon .
there seems to be good money in it for the manufacturers ; so i'm sure the trend will continue .
hbg