Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

maporsche wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
maporsche wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

Another way is for America to develop its own oil fileds (e.g., ANWR) to offset the high cost of imported oil and its consequential high cost of energy production. Individuals and company's would then be able to afford to invest much more in the development of more efficient transport and other machines.

Please explain to me how much cheaper oil would be if we drilled in ANWR?

The oil companies still SELL the oil to Americans, it's not like the OIL in ANWR is free for all Americans, it gets sold to us by the oil companies. Last time I checked the price difference in local crude oil and oil in the Middle East was about $2.

Elementary economics! The more of a product that is available for sale, the lower the price will be for that product. Increasing the number of our own oil fields that are producing oil, the more oil will be produced, and the lower will be the price of the oil produced. It's called competitive pricing.

Great! So how much cheaper will oil be? How much more oil will be on the market?

It takes about 10 years to develop an oil field into a producing oil field. So I bet that if we were to double domestic oil production ten years from now and the domestic demand for oil doubled by that time, the price of oil would probably be the same. Failure to develop our currently undeveloped domestic fields would probably result in doubling the price of oil to as much as $200 per barrel, if demand were not affected thereby. However, that price would probably limit growth in demand and stifle our economy, reducing jobs among other things. But that reduction in demand ten years from now could itself eventually reduce the increase in price.

So to answer your questions, I have to purchase a functioning crystal ball that doesn't consume much oil. Do you know where I can find one that I can afford? Smile

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

maporsche wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
maporsche wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

Another way is for America to develop its own oil fileds (e.g., ANWR) to offset the high cost of imported oil and its consequential high cost of energy production. Individuals and company's would then be able to afford to invest much more in the development of more efficient transport and other machines.

Please explain to me how much cheaper oil would be if we drilled in ANWR?

The oil companies still SELL the oil to Americans, it's not like the OIL in ANWR is free for all Americans, it gets sold to us by the oil companies. Last time I checked the price difference in local crude oil and oil in the Middle East was about $2.

Elementary economics! The more of a product that is available for sale, the lower the price will be for that product. Increasing the number of our own oil fields that are producing oil, the more oil will be produced, and the lower will be the price of the oil produced. It's called competitive pricing.

Great! So how much cheaper will oil be? How much more oil will be on the market?

It takes about 10 years to develop an oil field into a producing oil field. So I bet that if we were to double domestic oil production ten years from now and the domestic demand for oil doubled by that time, the price of oil would probably be the same. Failure to develop our currently undeveloped domestic fields would probably result in doubling the price of oil to as much as $200 per barrel, if demand were not affected thereby. However, that price would probably limit growth in demand and stifle our economy, reducing jobs among other things. But that reduction in demand ten years from now could itself eventually reduce the increase in price.

So to answer your questions, I have to purchase a functioning crystal ball that doesn't consume much oil. Do you know where I can find one that I can afford?

You think drilling in ANWR will DOUBLE our domestic oil production? Fine, show me some numbers.

Do you know what the domestic production is today? Do you know what the import numbers are today? Have you reviewed any projections for oil needs 10 years out? Oil has risen in from about $23 / barrel (adjusted for inflation) to almost $90 / barrel in the last 10 years...are you seriously telling me that you expect the cost per barrel to remain at $90 in 10 years?

I'm beginning to think you're delusional, but I'm sure you can provide me some numbers to back up your beliefs.

0 Replies

We are producing only about 5 million barrels per day, so we need ANWR pretty desperately to prop up declining production from Prudhoe Bay, as I understand it. ANWR is as much a replacement as it is a potential for increasing domestic production. If ANWR produced 1 to 1.5 million, it could account for roughly 20 to 30% of our domestic production, as it now stands. Also as the link shows, it could equal the import amounts from one of the main countries we now import from, such as Saudi Arabia. I thought everybody was in favor of being less dependent on Middle Eastern oil?

Nobody in their right mind should ignore 30% of anything, much less oil. The people that love to go around screaming no more blood for oil are also the same ones that oppose developing our own oil supplies. Go figure?

http://www.columbia.edu/~sp2023/scienceandsociety/web-pages/facts%20and%20figures.html

0 Replies

Isn't this all a mute point anyway?

Oil is convienint (because of the infrastructure) but by no means a superior source of power.

The price of oil and the value of oil to me are two different things. And while it's true that the price goes down the more that is avalible, the value to me decreases as the enviroment is effected and as third world countries are exploited. It's just not worth it.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Isn't this all a mute point anyway?

Wrong.

Quote:

Oil is convienint (because of the infrastructure) but by no means a superior source of power.

Wrong.

Quote:

The price of oil and the value of oil to me are two different things. And while it's true that the price goes down the more that is avalible, the value to me decreases as the enviroment is effected and as third world countries are exploited. It's just not worth it.

T
K
O

Unless you live in a cave, it obviously is worth it to you or you wouldn't be buying it, so your last answer is probably wrong as well. 0 for 3, you get an F, so you need to go back to school.

0 Replies

Saudia Arabia is now the third largest source of oil for the US. about 12%.

Joe(just saying)Nation

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I thought everybody was in favor of being less dependent on Middle Eastern oil?

I'm in favor of being less dependent on OIL. No need to add the 'Middle Eastern' qualifier.

The money/time/effort over the next 10 years would be much better invested in electric cars (and plug in hybrids) and carbon sequestration for coal fired power plants (or better yet, more nuclear), along with any needed improvements in our power grid.

Electric technology is the future, not bio-fuel, not compressed hydrogen, ELECTRIC! The infrastructure already exists and it's cheap, LiOn batteries are being developed for electric cars that will give vehicles 300+ mile range on a single charge (check out the Tesla).

0 Replies

The answer to our energy problem is "all of the above." This is not a multiple choice question, such as should we develop more oil, go with electric cars, etc. etc. etc. Besides, it is not a question to be answered by us wherein we can snap our fingers and automatically decide what is the most efficient. The truth is we currently do not have a proven alternative to oil that can replace it on a large scale. It is the market that should ultimately determine the best and most efficient answer as all of the above compete, as oil becomes more expensive and other sources become more competitive. It will most likely be a mix of energy sources that will slowly evolve, but to limit our options now is a very self defeating mindset.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Isn't this all a mute point anyway?

Wrong.

You're very unfounded opinion.

okie wrote:

Quote:
Oil is convienint (because of the infrastructure) but by no means a superior source of power.

Wrong.

For me to be "wrong" in my statement, oil would have to be a proven superior form of potential energy. I don't think you are ready to defend that notion (however, I'd be amused to watch you try).

okie wrote:

Quote:
The price of oil and the value of oil to me are two different things. And while it's true that the price goes down the more that is avalible, the value to me decreases as the enviroment is effected and as third world countries are exploited. It's just not worth it.

T
K
O

Unless you live in a cave, it obviously is worth it to you or you wouldn't be buying it, so your last answer is probably wrong as well. 0 for 3, you get an F, so you need to go back to school.

I don't live in a cave, and for that matter energy alternatives are not made avalible as an option to me on my campus.

I agree with your that most likely the shift will happen gradually from coal/oil to other forms, and that an immediate shift is currently unavalible. Having said that though, you are not going to be able to convince me that coal/oil companies are not deliberately interferring in the pursuit of offering me a superior ecologial and economical source for my power.

Quote:

... to limit our options now is a very self defeating mindset.

Who is putting up limits? Advocates for alterntive energy sources are for expanding our options, it's the coal/oil companies and follish politicians that limit our options.

yuo seem to think that energy alternatives will SLOWLY develop, but you offer no accountability to those that are slowing it down.

T
K
O

P.s. - As for going back to school, I'm already here. I am a Senior in Aerospace Engineering. My campus has many related majors and research in mining engineering, petroleum engineering, nuclear engineering, and electrical engineering. I eat and discuss related matters with these individuals on a daly basis. This lowly rocket scientist understands plenty. It is you who needs to return to school.

0 Replies

Yes, Virginia, global warming is for real. And in Greenland, people are loving it.

Today's New York wrote:

Full article

0 Replies

Prof James Lovelock is to address the oldest and most prestigious scientific body in the world tonight (the Royal Society founded in the reign of Charles II) in London. He will spell out why he believes climate change is happening faster than many experts had predicted.

Quote:

"The positive feedback on heating from the melting of floating Arctic and Antarctic ice alone is causing an acceleration of system-driven heating whose total will soon or already be greater than that from all tof the pollution CO2 that we have so far added".

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Yes, Virginia, global warming is for real. And in Greenland, people are loving it.

Today's New York wrote:

Full article

thomas, you are so naughty.

Of course, it does not matter how severe or catastrophic the consequences of global warming might be, 'positives' for some peoples or species or ecosystems will be a certain consequence. When the plague had run its course in Europe, a period of prosperity ensued for those who remained alive in part because those who remained alive now could simply move into abandoned houses, farms etc. Goods previously created were redistributed among a far smaller population.

Change of any sort will benefit somebody/something somewhere.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Having said that though, you are not going to be able to convince me that coal/oil companies are not deliberately interferring in the pursuit of offering me a superior ecologial and economical source for my power.

That explains your entire opinion. You have believed the bilge probably fed you by clueless professors. You need to get out into the real world, perhaps work for an oil company, or any energy company, and become acquainted with the people that actually are producing something tangible and real, and learn the realities of the world.

Its a free country. If you or anyone can prove a commercially viable energy source to replace oil today or tomorrow, you have a ticket to prosperity. The truth is there are countless people including scientists working on it, and they haven't yet come up with the magic bullet. Some offer promise, and some are breaking into the market in limited ways, but no oil company would ever be able to prevent an obvious alternative that works big time, and in fact if there was, they would also jump on the bandwagon.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The truth is there are countless people including scientists working on it, and they haven't yet come up with the magic bullet.

No one will disagree with you on this point. Where the disagreement will come is when you start asking questions about government oil subsidies, or tax breaks. When you start talking about opening up our coastlines, wildlife refuges, etc.

We need to stop spending government money on an old technology and increase our spending/funding for new batteries, more efficient hybrid technology, improving the electrical grid infrastructure in some areas, etc.

0 Replies

I feel sympathy for you okie having to spend your time explaining such elementary things.

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

Change of any sort will benefit somebody/something somewhere.

Of course. That is Destiny. Which tribes emerged from the chaos of 20 ft higher sea levels would be the strongest by definition from evolution science's point of view. And the US would be the strongest and the refined selfish gene would carry the torch of humanity into the unforeseeable future. It has got a lttle buggy running around Mars sending pictures back of as yet unlandscaped territory.

When one looks at American oil consumption figures they can only say one thing- "Bring it on". And a lot of consumption is on the books of other countries.

You're just an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy who wants to put the brakes on now you've had your fling.

0 Replies

mappie wrote-

Quote:

We need to stop spending government money on an old technology and increase our spending/funding for new batteries, more efficient hybrid technology, improving the electrical grid infrastructure in some areas, etc.

We know mappie. Everybody knows that. Every politician says that stuff over and over.

What we need is to find out how to do it without resorting to totalitarianism. A king would simply do it if he was convinced that was what is needed. Kings can afford wave away the opposition.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

We know mappie. Everybody knows that. Every politician says that stuff over and over.

What we need is to find out how to do it without resorting to totalitarianism. A king would simply do it if he was convinced that was what is needed. Kings can afford wave away the opposition.

Well we can start in the US by stop talking about opening up new oil drilling locations. Stop subsidizing the oil companies. Give larger tax breaks to businesses researching this new technology and to consumers who buy this new technology.

There are ways to do this, it just appears that politicians are unwilling to do it, at least the ones running our country now.

0 Replies

I have not seen 'Every politician says that stuff over and over.' Most Republicans hardly if ever mention the things in question.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Every politician says that stuff over and over.

spendi

Here's a classic example of why I don't much bother to enter into an analytic discussion with you. The sentence is factually false. It is false because you aren't apparently concerned with accuracy. Generalizations like this are lazy and serve myopia, not clarity.

You'll claim that a greater truth is served by the generalization and it is therefore logically permissable. It isn't, of course. I wonder whether you perceive that the real function of such 'argumentation' is simply to provide you with a position not open to disproof.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Of course, it does not matter how severe or catastrophic the consequences of global warming might be, 'positives' for some peoples or species or ecosystems will be a certain consequence.

On the other hand, it does not matter how insanely great and beneficial the consequences of global warming might be, "negatives" for some peoples or sepecies or ecosystems will be a certain consequence.

I guess that's my point. The net impact of global warming on our well-being should be determined by a sober cost-benefit analysis. Instead, what you read in the press is a repetition of the same anecdotes over and over again. Everyone with an interest in public affairs knows about the melting permafrost, the flooded islands, and the increase in hurricane intensity. But are these stories more typical of the impact than the "good news" about Greenland's potato farmers and Germany's vintners? From reading newspapers, and from watching TV and movies, it's hard to tell if the depressing stories are really more typical of what's going on, or if they merely get repeated more often.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know