ParanoiA

No, I think it will make OPEC reconsider their production and make some kind of change that would be beneficial to us. Sorry but I can't share your extremist approach to ideas. All or nothing isn't always adequate. Rather than repeat myself over and over again about my strong conviction for alternative fuels as a long term solution that you keep ignoring, let me approach this differently. How does NOT drilling change this? If I've already committed to alternative fuels for long term solutions, then how does NOT drilling as a short term solution change your scenario above? Answer: It doesn't. Your post is all about lecturing me on long term solutions which I've already stated from my first post in this thread and every thread on this topic that I've participated in, that I am an alternative fuels supporter. For tons of reasons that don't have anything to do with your peak oil crap or global warming. If you can't keep up, then sit down. Your tack of misrepresenting mine, and everyone else's positions by continually recycling "long term solution" arguments as if we don't believe in them is intellectual fraud. Cut it out. If you have nothing to add to the short term solution discussion, then you really have no one to lecture here as I don't think anyone in here doesn't support alternative fuels as a long term solution. (Gee, I guess I did repeat myself over and over after all...maybe it will make a mental impression in his noggin this time?) Gee, paradigm anyone? Way to think outside of the box there Oil dude. Here's a thought: How about an alternative fuel system that doesn't require expensive infrastructure in the form of refueling hubs - the old, archaic system that came from using gas energy? Have you heard about the guy with the $500,000 dollar green house? I sure wish I could find a reference online, but I caught the tail end of it on Discovery. He used all parts and materials available on the consumer market presently. He can refuel his car with his hydrogen converter, or whatever its called. I believe it uses sunlight only to generate hydrogen. That means no "refueling hub" or mass infrastructure. It could be no different than buying AC for your home. This part of the problem with socializing the solution. You leave no room for innovation. Capitalism isn't flawless, but innovation is definitely one of its strengths. Let hundreds of enterprising businesses each try their own method and allow the most economically viable method to win the day. Utilizing natural human competitive behavior. I appreciate your intent, but I'm not sure I see where I've ammended anything. I never disputed a piddly amount of oil, since I'm reliant on experts in the field. I still believe that drilling will effect the market price, postively in terms of economic relief for the poor, but negatively in terms of fueling the alternative energy market. We disagree on it, but I think we each have legitimate reasons for our positions. Maybe that's what you mean. I have stepped back to rethink the notion that perhaps high gas prices are necessary, rather than undesirable, in order to keep the momentum going for alternative fuels. But in terms of numbers, I doubt drilling would make such a difference that it would cancel the intensity of alternative energy development. (Although $4 has become a magic number, so I may be wrong). And more importantly, whatever equipment we're stuck with that requires oil 10 or so years from now, we should want domestic resources to maintain it. Energy dependence on other nations is a huge issue for me. And that piddly amount of oil could suddenly be considered alot if we have a dramatically smaller arsenol to supply. Oh give me a break. Spoiled americans have no idea what a freaking recession is. Maybe on a pedantic analytical economic level one can technically say it's a recession. But it's meaningless. Our economy goes in cycles. I've actually spent more the past couple of years than the previous decade. We're buying all kinds of shit. Recession? Where? Oh yeah, the news keeps telling me that, but I ain't seen no recession. I actually heard on the radio about some whinebags going on about how this economy is like the Great Depression. WTF??? No doubt it's got to be coming from young, new little adults trying to generate thoughts on their own with no reference to scale. I have a feeling this also comes from this obsessive market regulation impulse we have. We're so bent on equalizing strength and weakness by punishing strength and rewarding weakness that now we have to "fix" the fallout of every business cycle. The latest being the housing bubble. Americans are wienies. I can say that, they're my countrymen.

Call me stupid but I don't understand the graph. I don't understand what "Probability of more than, in percent" value is really referring to. I don't understand what "volume of oil increasing" is. And guess how much I grasp the 3 squiggly lines... I've always had this problem. Graphs are my achilles heel, I guess. If someone will take the time, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Or more accurately, because some of us don't READ the points being made and respond to them, but rather recycle their arguments as if those points were never made. I'm still waiting for someone to refute my point that drilling for oil, no matter fruitful or not, will effect the oil market today. Or else we can keep going in circles. Amen to that.

The point you all seem to be missing is that it doesn't matter if the oil is a piddly amount or not. You all keep replying back with these arguments on how the piddly oil extracted won't help anything. That's fine and I don't contest that at all, but none of you are making an argument against the market dynamics that will change when we drill. So, that's two aspects, not just one. One is the piddly amount that won't actually help much in reality, 10 years from now when we finally get it. (Although, I still contend that massive changes in the consumer market for alternative vehicles will reduce what's required, thus increasing the significance of that piddly amount). Two, is the effect on the oil market today. Drilling for oil - even if just a dummy operation - will influence the business. Maybe it would help if I mention "perception is reality". That's the market dynamics I'm talking about. It's going to effect the price of oil, the production of oil, the prospect of oil right now - LONG before we ever actually get the oil or do anything with it. Drilling = Independence in the minds of business. When OPEC takes notice of America drilling for its own oil, it increases the perceived intensity that our committment is to independence from their market - their product. That will inevitably change the market today. Businesses take notice and make changes when you reject their service. Drilling for own oil creates that message that we are on a dedicated path to rid ourselves of their service. No matter if it will actually do that or not. You all can disagree with that, but for the last time, please take issue with THAT point instead of taking the easy path of pointing out how "it's just a little bit". Market dynamics are not that simple.

What does Peak Oil have to do with this? They're not proposing drilling just off our beaches and .01% of wildlife refuges because we think the oil supply has peaked. They're proposing it for independence's sake, and a host of market reasons. And the only way it will work is if alternative energy is our long term solution. So yeah, I'm guessing Peak Oil is still a religion. But I wouldn't know since I don't care if oil has peaked or not. I don't care if carbon emissions hurt the climate or not. I don't care because there is a laundry list of verifiable, uncontested reasons to ditch oil. 'Peak Oil' is just a distraction, to me.

Stratfor is short for Strategic Forecasting. It's a group dedicated to forecasting the strategy of governments and politics. They don't provide value judgements or report news, rather they size up the US and the rest of the world as if they were external to it. They don't write about what should be done, they write about they think is being done. The article I read on this was long, (all of their articles are long) and drawn out and I guess I don't remember the details. When I get to work this morning, I'll scan it again and see where I've gone wrong trying to describe and share it. Forming stable, prosperous, democratic socieities and cultural exchange obviously seems like a better idea. But that's not the discussion and my post is not an endorsement.

Well I certainly didn't mean to imply I don't enjoy them. And yes, they are often of good quality, not mere one liners.

It's rhetoric iNow, why all dramatic about it? Your smart ass one liners have been your signature on here, it really doesn't become you to blow up over turnabout.

Are you taking this position because you think the higher prices are good for the alternative fuels market? Or some other reason? I'm leaning towards liking the idea of high prices to fuel the alternative market, because I just want to see the end of oil, and the beginning of possible "non-grid" energy solutions. Imagine not having to pay a utility bill. But, meanwhile, I can barely afford a six pack. A six pack Pangloss! This is some serious shit. If a man can't wind down with a beer and a bj, then life just ain't worth livin'.

Then we will never agree Oil Man because I do not believe in expansion of external governance. Government is not to blame here in america, anyway. Government didn't mandate cars to run on oil. Government didn't mandate factories to be built using machines that use oil. Government didn't mandate everything we buy in the store to be packaged in thick plastic overkill that require me to use elaborate cutting tools to open. Government didn't mandate convenience stores to set up the facilities for refilling. Government didn't mandate the use of oil, Oil Man. The people did, in the free market. Freedom has a price. The market will respond to the demand of the consumer. If consumers want electric and hydro solutions, they'll get them. But the market answers demands from the wallet, not your lips. When people start putting their money where their mouth is, we will get all the alternative this and that to the point you'll be sick. Trust me. Just ask some americans about carbs and fast food...

Ok, that's certainly plausible. So how would that have improved our access to oil from before the war then? What shape were we in that we thought security with our military was necessary? They still sell us oil even after we invaded one of their countries. I'm only challenging the "oil" concept. Well, not really challenging as much as trying to understand the tangibles in "War for Oil" rhetoric. But Saddam didn't cause a chaotic fracture. And he only had Iraq. Splitting up Iraq, our first stage <shiver>, polarizes the region. After that the idea is to use pressure, military presence and so forth to keep the region from unifying. All this to keep terrorism from refinement. I have to give credit for this idea to Stratfor. It makes sense to me, but probably only because I'm not real knowledgable on the region myself. I believe it, but I could easily change my mind upon better evidence, logic.

I repeat: So, if this thread is going to improve in quality then our points need to be recognized. The repeated attempts at misrepresenting our positions by making points we already agree with is disingenuous. John, Pangloss and I have all been very clear that we are pro-alternative energy committed dudes. We have also been very clear that is a long term solution and so we're now looking at the short term one. These replies ignore that fact:

I'm thinking number 3 more than 1 or 2. I also strongly believe the ideas of PNAC were the largest factor, coupled with american resolve to create chaos out of the middle east - to stop the Muslim state gaining ground in the region. Remember, terrorism is a multi-national fruit. I believe the idea was to fracture the Muslim resolve to unify as a strong opposition to the West, thereby crippling terror activities and support. Iraq was perfect for that.

I believe it was factored in, more than anything else. How was our access to oil in more jeopardy before the war than after? Assuming access is the premise. What is it that we have secured? It's not like we can steal the oil, just look at the price per barrel for crying out loud. I'm just ignorant really. I keep hearing 'War for Oil', 'Blood for Oil' but I'm not seeing the actual connection, just regurgitation of popular rhetoric.

Reaper's and iNow's posts: 1) Ignore the repeated point I keep making that these piddly reserves will only be effective if the dependence on them is depleted. Since it won't be consumable for several years (I keep hearing around a decade, but I'm no expert), the focus on alternative energy solutions will have advanced in that same time so that the equipment that still requires oil at that time will be reduced. 2) Ignore the repeated point by us pro-drill guys that it's not a long term solution. It's a short term market manipulation. 3) Ignore the repeated appeals by us pro-drill guys that we've already agreed to commit to alternative energy sources. My position requires it. Maybe I should try a larger font size or bold it in red so everyone will see that we are fully committed to other sources of energy. But I haven't driven by any hydrogen filling stations lately. I also haven't seen any electric cars that I can afford and will take me back and forth to work yet. The stuff just isn't here yet. It sucks, I know. I can't freaking wait until a little electric truck comes out that I can afford. And I'm frothing over the idea of solar panels on my house. I will not be able to contain my glee when I can disconnect from the grid. So, if this thread is going to improve in quality then our points need to be recognized. The repeated attempts at misrepresenting our positions by making points we already agree with is disingenuous. John, Pangloss and I have all been very clear that we are pro-alternative energy committed dudes. We have also been very clear that is a long term solution and so we're now looking at the short term one. I would think that anything "we should be saving oil for" is something that desparately needs attention by R&D. I don't want to be accused of hating anything oil, it's just that any energy source that isn't essentially infinitely renewable, is just a temporary solution, to me. That's also why I scratch my head at the thought of humans discovering what oil could do and then investing so heavily into it. It was sensible to do something with it, but I don't see the sense in effectively resting our technology at that point. It's just so...primitive.

So burning this piddly amount of oil is going to put us over the edge in risking human life? I don't think so. I think it's the gazillions of output over the course of an entire century. In comparison, the benefits do actually outweigh the costs. The benefits are based on market perception and reaction, possibly getting our gasoline cheaper, and the independence gained is priceless. The cost to the environment is small since the amount of GW promoting material is small. I care about the future of life on this planet and it will not be acheived by dismissing reality. Reality = alternative fuels are not cost effective. Not yet. We are going to use oil for the next 20 years no matter how awesome alternative fuels take off, no matter how focused society gets on getting rid of it - we have heavily invested in this energy source and it will take an equally significant investment in an alternative to take its place. It's just that simple. You can repy with appeals to stupidity, life, poetic ramblings about 'the children' but none of that is going to magically erase the infrastructure of the oil energy market and the reality that people need it, and are going to pay for the cheapest source. Obviously, my position would be entirely different had alternative fuels been rolled out with significant infrastructure already in place. The only hang up I have is the uncomfortable reality that we still need oil. I hate it. But I don't see any way around it.

What I'm trying to figure out is if it's a one-to-one destruction method, or if the damage is spread out amongst all marriages. So if one gay couple gets married, does that destroy one hetero marriage, or does it destroy all hetero marriages just a little bit? Just one of many attributes we can infer from merely looking at people. Just this morning I walked into a store full of women that wanted me. I could tell just by looking at them.

Well oversimplification does serve the simple minded.

Actually, they rest squarely on the idea that this tiny piddling of oil up there will effect the dynamics of the oil market to have enough impact to help. Haven't you noticed how none of us have taken issue with your appeals to the low supply? We don't deny it. Yet you're entire argument rests on repeating that fact. This is going to require deeper analysis than Fox and Friends, or The Daily Show. You seem to be judging our insistance on drilling for this piddly amount of oil within a vacuum. It's only beneficial to drill for this oil as long as we simultaneously reduce the burden for that energy source by charging ahead with alternative energy. Consider that point for a minute, because it directly responds to yours. If we can only begin to use that oil after a decade, then that's also after an entire decade of reduced demand for it by consumers trading in gas monsters for electric or hydro. So that piddly amount of oil will take care of a higher percentage of gas monsters still in service at that time. If there is no unified front between drilling and rolling out alternative vehicles, then yes, you're right, this will do practically nothing. In my opinion, it has to be both. Both will provide a two pronged attack on the oil market, with immediate results even though the real product won't be available for a decade.

Because it's like allowing Snicker's to harvest sugar on the condition they spend a % of the profits on vegetable farming. It's weird, and wrong. I can't agree with this perverted psychological experiment where we insist on forcing business to promote the market of their competition. Such unnatural forces can't be healthy, and can't be without unintended consequences. How about letting the market work? Gas is up, people aren't having it, SUV sales are plummetting, alternative fuels and hybrids are the talk of the day - government subsidies really aren't necessary, (well are never necessary actually, but...) just kick back and watch the capitalists work.

Sure he could be wrong. But it doesn't sound likely. I'm surprised he hasn't suggested growth hormone, so I wonder if there's something about your physiology precluding that solution. Why don't you go see an endocrinologist? Unless you're not worried about it...

Yeah, I'm with the common sense movement here. I realize we can't drill ourselves out of this entire mess, but isn't that like refusing to use your hand to feint a bullet? It may not do much to cure the problem, but seems ridiculous to reject the obvious. And, even if we all buy electric and hydo cars tomorrow, we still have high priced industrial and military equipment that will continue to need it well in the future, even after we've all forgotten about oil. I'd sleep easier knowing a chinese invasion could be met with our big toys and our own oil to run them with. So, I say drill, drill and drill again. But more importantly, let's stop giving oil companies subsidies for alternative fuels. Here's a thought....how about we stop giving funds to the private sector that thanks us by charging us R&D prices regardless of our "investment"? Who Killed the Electric Car ought to be a great testiment on why we shouldn't do these kinds of things....(while we repeat history by doing it with Ethanol).

My favs include Radiohead, Floyd, Beatles, Rush, Tool, Deftones, Mars Volta...I like progressive with sensible song writing skills. Of course, I love old Rock. Rap gets on my last nerve and country is annoying, but I try not disparage other's creativity.