And you are just trying to get a free lunch by not taking responsibility for anything or paying for anything.

You hardly seem to be one to judge.

Great thread...I only wish you had presented both part I and II in the same but then again a couple of debates to add to the many we've had elsewhere can't hurt.

First off, since you are new here I'll share a bit of info about me so you get a bit of perspective on where I'm coming from...

I spent some decades in the oil patch...started out drilling...went into wireline work with explosives dealing with "fishing jobs" on problem wells...went on to work for a major oil company where I spent time in production, spent time in engineering writing programs for frac jobs, pressure acid washes, well steaming and such...and went on to become a drilling foreman...I also taught petroleum technology classes in college...in other words, I'm not exactly anti oil...I'm an environmentalist but "tree hugger" doesn't quite fit...I believe we can acheive a balance.

Moving along...I've got no problem with drilling ANWR or offshore...in fact, when I lived on a sailboat on a mooring outside Santa Barbara harbor and I went fishing I would head out toward the platforms...a great environment for aquatic life...great fishing.

Let's look at ANWR...the area in question is some miniscule area of the habitat...something in the tenths of a percent so I don't have a problem with drilling there either...BUT...let's at least try and be practical here...you present it as a "mid to long range development"...this would be true to a degree but let's put it into perspective...yes, the estimated reserves are in the billions of barrels of oil...nobody knows for sure but a generally accepted figure seems to be around 10.4 billion barrels.

We consume over 20 million barrels of oil per day...I like to put this into the perspective of pointing out that a billion barrels provides for our needs for a bit less than 50 days...in other words 10.4 billion barrels is a bit less than a year and a half supply if we were to use it to meet all of our needs...granted we wouldn't do that even if we could...which we couldn't...as a matter of fact by the time we could even accomplish that we would have long since run out up there...in other words it is an impossibility...but...let's put it into a more reasonable perspective...

I've often heard the idea that we could produce a million barrels per day from there...in other words to provide for roughly 5% of our needs...think about that from a couple of perspectives...first, oil is an internationally traded commodity and a million barrels per day would have virtually no effect on the price of a product that is consumed at the rate of over 80 million barrels per day on the worldwide market...secondly, at that rate we would deplete it in about 30 years...now I don't know about you but when I consider that from the perspective of my new greatgranddaughter that I held in my arms yestertday...I don't consider that long term.

Let's take a look at the offshore situation...the estimates there are 21 billion barrels which is convienient in that I can simply say, double the scenario...less than a 3 year supply or 60 years of minimal benefit...still not what I would call long term.

No, when I think long term I take into accout that we have only something like 3% of the worlds proven reserves and when I consider that from the perspective of becoming energy self sufficient I further consider that oil is useful for so many other things than carting out sorry asses around and creating smog...nope, we need to concentrate on the alternatives...I'm glad to see you also address that.

Sadly, the oil companies convinced Eisenhower that we didn't need to develop the hydrogen technology that could be had from the Germans after WWII by convincing him that we had an endless supply of oil...back then that might be what you might consider a "long term" view but unfortunately in today's world it looks a bit short sighted in retrospect...I recall doing a study in college back in the late 60's about hydrogen...there was a community near Provo Utah back then that ran on hydrogen...that included the cars, the lawn mowers, it was even piped into the houses to burn in the stoves to cook on.

I believe we can get off of oil rather quickly if we put the right kind of effort out there...at least for our basic automotive transportation needs which is where the bulk of our usage is spent...oh yeah...I remember back in early 70's the city of Riverside CA had a couple of buses that they tested that ran on hydrogen...mass transit...they weren't met with great enthusiasm because they emitted an aweful looking white vapor out of the exhaust pipes...it's commonly known as water vapor...no doubt a collection system could have eliminated that but since it was basically harmless they didn't bother...too bad.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



OBAMA/PEROT

Take responsibility for what?
Pay for what?
What do you mean by these two comments?

I have cut my gasoline consumption by 60% and I have a new energy efficient home with the most modern insulation and the exterior of my home is brick and hardy plank.
My home can withstand 150 mph winds and I have solar attic fans and lighting.
My home is powered with 20% nuclear energy and soon to add wind energy.
Almost 50% of my home energy will soon be alternative fuels, unless Democrats block it.

I know that most of the nation and world can not claim such environmental friendly changes, especially northeast US and Europe. (Old, inefficient buildings and blocking alternative fuels)

I'm now waiting to buy an electric car.

Why are Democrats blocking alternative energy independence and punishing me for being more efficient with higher energy costs?

__________________
Democrats have betrayed the American people.

Great point!

How are Democrats blocking alternative energy independence?

I keep telling you that Reagan was not a Democrat.

It was Reagan that ensured that all homes built in the past quarter century were like the home you now have. But I suppose Reagan has given you the opportunity to have a home that is energy efficient, instead of having to make your home use zero energy by never needing heating and cooling while generating the electricity with solar to power the lights and electronics as well as fuel your five year old electric car.

But hey, Reagan had a better idea where the US drills its way to energy independence and cheap oil.

Clinton leased out millions of acres more than seven years ago to oil companies practically begging them to produce oil by given them the oil completely free of all royalty payments. With the 60 billion barrels of "proven" oil reserves on those leases, and zero royalty payments, the price of oil should be $20 a barrel if Reagan had the correct path to energy independence and cheap energy.

And if the big oil companies with those leases are correct in saying that there is no oil on those 60 billion barrels of proven oil leases, doesn't that means that ANWR and OCS will have one-third of zero oil on them?

Clearly your actions prove that a carbon tax is the means to get to sustainable energy and energy independence. And for that, we can thank President Bush for his complex strategy that imposed a carbon tax of about $2.50 a gallon on gasoline, five times the 50 cent a gallon carbon tax that Al Gore was defeated for proposing. And it was Bush who campaigned against Gore, opposing his 50 cent carbon tax - who knew that Bush was planning a $2.50 a gallon carbon tax on gasoline and home heating oil and on coal and on electricity.

Of course Bush did make sure that the carbon tax forces little sacrifice on the right like Al Gore who Bush granted huge tax concessions so Al Gore has no trouble buying an oil house that guzzles energy, and is able to afford flying all over the planet, and easily able to afford $10,000 a month energy bills.

I guess Bush felt he needed to give Gore a break after defeating him in 2000 in a landslide of popular support for Bush.

Last night in a preview of Charlie Rose's interveiw of Yergin, Yergin points out that world oil consumption increased by 4 million barrels a day from 1998 to 2002. Since 2002 to today, oil consumption has increased by a further 8 million barrels a day.

He credits the global market for everything, both the high growth in Asia and the rise of oil prices everywhere in the world. Except the nations where oil is a key part of the government's energy policy, like in Saudi Arabia on the producing side, and in China on the consuming side.

In any case, I have been using 80 mbd for world oil production, but think more like 87 mbd with 88 coming soon.

Here's the data from EIA
1998 74.01
1999 75.67
2000 76.66
2001 77.40
2002 78.04
2003 79.62
2004 82.33
2005 83.65
2006 84.62
2007 85.38
2008 86.38 (est)
2009 87.70 (est)

EIA has revised 2008/9 downward significantly, in its latest report saying:
"World oil consumption is projected to grow by 1 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2008. U.S. consumption of liquid fuels and other petroleum is expected to decline by about 290,000 bbl/d in 2008 because of higher petroleum product prices and slower economic growth. Adjusting for increased ethanol use, U.S. petroleum consumption is projected to fall by 440,000 bbl/d in 2008."

Note that ethanol production, something that consumes one-fifth the corn used to feed cattle for meat, has replaced about half the million barrels a day that is touted for ANWR.

The EIA figures for ethanol are a bit difficult to read, but here's their data

Transportation Sector
Quadrillion Btu
Biofuelsb
1998 0.115
1999 0.120
2000 0.138
2001 0.145
2002 0.172
2003 0.235
2004 0.296
2005 0.346
2006 0.483
2007 0.640
2008 0.842 (est)
2009 0.938 (est)

b Fuel ethanol supply includes production but excludes imports, exports, and stock change. Fuel ethanol consumption in transportation sector represents total fuel ethanol blended into motor gasoline.

The ethanol subsidies have been in effect since 1978 (Carter administration) and were revised in 1980, and then again several other times. The use of ethanol increased as an alternative to MTBE and then because the price of petroleum products increased to more than ethanol. Subsidies for building ethanol plants helped boost capacity to produce ethanol, but the economic of high oil prices made ethanol highly desirable.

Cutting all the corn ethanol subsidies at this point wouldn't cut the use of ethanol, though it might slow growth. Funneling those subsidies to cellulosic ethanol would drive investment in that area, and eliminating the import tarrifs on ethanol and on sugar would have some expansive effect on ethanol. Possibly the sugar imports would displace corn surup use freeing up corn for use making ethanol.

Of course, switching to more range fed beef would cut corn consumption as well, freeing it up for ethanol production.

And when you can "fill up" and electric car with $5 of electricity and travel more than a hundred miles, you cut your "gasoline" bill by 50-80%. With the plug in hybrids hitting the market as well as other all electric vehicles, that will cut gasoline consumption.

Add up the ethanol, the electric, the more efficient cars from the revised CAFE standards, not to mention people finding every possible way to cut gas consumption, the world demand for oil might well decline by a few million barrels a day before any of the "new" oil from the leases already in the hands of the oil companies come online, much less before such places as ANWR could explored and development planning begun.

Anyway, figure a world oil consumption of 85 million barrels a day minimum for the next few years, not 80, and if the price of oil falls back a bit, it might well hit 90 is Asia keeps growing at 10% economically.

Thanks mulp, I tend to use smaller numbers on the demand side and the larger estimates on the supply side so I can comfortably say "less than" or "more than" after crunching the numbers...even so, the picture isn't pretty if we look at the reality regarding oil.

I wasn't too sure where we were at now but knew it was over 80...85 certainly appears would hold up to any scrutiny, thanks again.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



OBAMA/PEROT

RU,

I'm couching long term in the political sense. Americans are notoriously short-sighted, so 30 years is long term politically speaking. I do, nonetheless, completely see and respect your points though. And fine, well-reasoned points they are.

Let's take another example of what you would probably classify as short term; the conversion time between our current gasoline-fueled auto fleet and a new alternative/hybrid/battery/hydrogen-powered fleet.

While prices are declining, they are still on the high side for the average working family. Furthermore, families are going to need options that can carry four to five adult sized bodies in a reasonably comfortable fashion. I am 6'5" and built like a defensive lineman. That requires some space to haul around.

Nonetheless, even once these new vehicles meet the needs both financially and structurally of American families and businesses, estimates are it will still take between 15 and 20 years to transition the auto fleet and work gasoline vehicles out of it. That, again in political terms, is mid to long term.

While I hope that hybrid, battery and alternative energy can revolutionize our transportation systems, my initial focus is on dealing with the cards currently in our hand.

As I tell my kids when we're discussing foreign and military policy development, hope gets people killed, planning, preparation and contingencies save lives. In this case, hope may leave the economy crippled while plans may allow it to progress, if not thrive.

Taken as a whole, the plan is an attempt to reach a balance. While making the most of the resources at hand, we should aggressively be planning and laying the foundation and supporting infrastructure for the future. Accordingly, I try to increase oil supply and refining while encouraging the commercialization of new technologies.

Finally, though an additional one to three million barrels a day may seem numerically insignificant, the psychological impact on the markets is potentially profound. This would arguably be supplies that are relatively safe from interruption; at least when compared to Nigerian oil and the roughly 30 percent of daily global supplies that traverse the Strait of Hormuz. That would provide a stablizing psychological force in contrast to the current hair trigger the market is on every time a breaking news update flashes on CNN or MSNBC.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I've gotta thank you The Bare Knuckled Pundit. I can finally give up my title of "guy who is so long winded, he makes the bible look like a pamphlet".

LOL... good posts, I've got a few things to add on the subject of the grid, but something for a later time.