Obama vs. McCain on energy

[iNow]

Looks like neither candidate wants to consider ANWR, so we can drop that one.

 

Thank Thor for that one. Very reassuring, as long as it's more than just words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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...

 

From the link:

 

 

Figure 4. Schematic graph illustrating petroleum volumes and probabilities. Curves represent categories of oil in assessment. An example of how one reads this graph is illustrated by the blue and orange lines projected to the curve for economically recoverable oil. There is a 95-percent chance (i.e., probability, F95) of at least volume V1 of economically recoverable oil, and there is a 5-percent chance (F05) of at least volume V2 of economically recoverable oil.

 

Sidenote 3:

 

In-place resources.—The amount of petroleum contained in accumulations of at least 50 MMBO without regard to recoverability.

 

Technically recoverable resources.—Volume of petroleum representing that proportion of assessed in-place resources that may be recoverable using current recovery technology without regard to cost.

 

Economically recoverable resources.—That part of the technically recoverable resource for which the costs of discovery, development, and production, including a return to capital, can be recovered at a given well-head price.

 

 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANWR, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. All reported oil volumes in millions of barrels. Basic statistical principles determine that mean values can be added and subtracted but F95 and F05 values cannot (e.g., means for the undeformed and deformed parts of the ANWR 1002 area sum to the mean for the total ANWR 1002 area, but F95 and F05 values do not). F95 , 95-percent probability level; F05 , 5-percent probability level

Edited June 20, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[iNow]

OK, I'll take your point — and bury it under the geological reality where it belongs. You REALLY think that drilling a piddly little diddly squat amount of oil is going to make OPEC shake in their boots and produce heaps more to fix the world market?

 

For the last time — they cannot fix this! The rising demand is simply too strong and the potential upstream too weak. So go ahead. Drill everywhere you can. You might lower the price for a year. Good luck with that. Increase peak oil denial, good luck with that. But sooner or later, the inevitability of the geological decline that we can ALREADY observe in our half of the oil world is marching towards us in ever greater bites out of our oil pie, So go ahead, make my day. Have oil spills on Californian and Florida beaches, increase global warming a bit more, but America will STILL be facing shortages in 5 or 10 years, STILL have the economy wreaked by the inevitable geology, STILL have to look at rationing protocols and emergency relocation and maybe even the army corps of engineers coming in to rush build stuff... because it's such an emergency!

 

Again, let's be fair to ParanoiA. It appears that he has ammended his position (even if only slightly) after the numbers were shared. His points were quite valid, it's just that they did not scale appropriately, nor accurately reflect the scope of the issue. However, it appears that he has ammended his position.

 

 

Regardless, I think that's part of the intent behind the proposals to drill. I also think, though, that they are as hopeful as Pangloss in believing there is more there than being reported. I'm inclined to default to judgement of those in the field, which seem to agree with you that the amount is insignificant.

 

 

...Which is precisely the point we have been making.

[Pangloss]

Yeah, well, I think NBC News here in the States declared this to be a recession, and that Iraq was in Civil War. Neither of those things has turned out to be true yet either. Just goes to show you what happens when the news decides to set the agenda.

 

Do you understand the concept of probability, and how even 16M barrels is at the low end of the probability scale? In simple terms, it's not likely that we will get that much. Most likely, we'll get much less (as has been clearly articulated in my previous post).

 

I did see that in your post, and I've read POM's posts along the same lines, yes. I acknowledge the statistics. I just don't know enough about how detailed and widespread this analysis was. Did they just look at ANWR and extrapolate what might be off the Florida coast, or are they saying it's up to (maybe) 16 billion barrels in ANWR alone, and Florida (and every other state) may have even MORE than that?

 

You've given me reason to reconsider the subject, I admit. I'll keep an open mind about it, though it still seems to me that (in general) digging for oil should continue as we transition to alternate fuels. I just don't understand this desperate desire to prohibit that, it's like (and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, I'm asking) you're saying that all oil production should immediately stop so we can wake up and smell the coffee you've been shoving under everyone's noses, and if a lot of people are hurt by that, so what, at least we woke up. I just don't like that kind of ideological drive. It really rubs me the wrong way. If that's not your opinion, cool, but it seems that way to me when you talk about refusing future drilling when we're probably the only country in the world that's not doing that, and we're STILL dinged as ecological criminals.

 

And POM, I hear you, but I'm just not interested in "they can't fix this". If that's the case then what's the point of talking about it? Just go build your bomb shelter and... stock up.

[bascule]

Yeah, well, I think NBC News here in the States declared this to be a recession

 

Actually, we're in a recession... see:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2008/06/16/daily44.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/06/16/daily70.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSNAT00415020080620

[Pangloss]

Well even if that's true, we weren't when they decided to call it one.

[bascule]

Well even if that's true, we weren't when they decided to call it one.

 

I think it's highly dubious that we experienced any real economic growth, but rather a higher dollar amount due to inflation.

[iNow]

You've given me reason to reconsider the subject, I admit.

 

We may not agree on how to achieve the final outcome, but we do seem to share a similar goal as pertains to said outcome. I am heartened to know that the evidence has impacted your thinking.

 

I am sorry, now, for not sharing it sooner. Either way, the subject deserves reconsideration when phrased in terms of supporting further drilling.

 

 

More oil is not the answer. It's like treating a heart attack with an ice cream sandwich.

[john5746]

More oil is not the answer. It's like treating a heart attack with an ice cream sandwich.

 

Is your primary problem with oil the Co2 emissions? that's the only thing I see that fits your analogy.

[Pangloss]

Incidentally, offshore drilling has suddenly become a red hot issue here in Florida. Drilling has been prevented in spite of many years of Republican control of both houses and the governorship, thanks in part to a successful melding of conservationism and environmentalism mainly aimed at protection of natural resources like the Everglades, which of course benefit tourism, Florida's primary industry, which annually produces $65 billion in revenue.

 

It's difficult to describe how entrenched this issue has been -- absolutely part of the landscape, if you'll forgive the pun. If you'd asked me six months ago about offshore drilling in Florida I (and anybody else) would have said "when hell freezes over" and probably still been accused of understating the case. The New York Times (one of our local papers ) called it "the third rail of Florida politics" in this article today. They're not joking. I would have quoted Dan Rather and called it a "20 foot pole" issue. (You know, the pole you use for stuff you wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.)

 

But now with $4 gas a reality, there is a new bipartisan effort to do a complete 180. New governor Charlie Crist (high on the list of potential McCain VPs) is now in favor of it, as is former governor Jeb Bush, who was always considered one of the greatest opponents to drilling, knocking it down it time and time again during his eight years in office. I know many here won't believe me when I say this (it's Jeb BUSH after all), but it really was quite stunning to see that particular announcement.

 

According to the NYT article linked above (and here), current proposals stipulate that any drilling must take place at least 150 miles from shore. It also cites a National Petroleum Council (whatever that is) study saying that around 5.2 billion barrels of oil wait off the Florida coast (and a lot of natural gas). (Perhaps that answers one of the questions I posed earlier. Not a lot of oil, but it sounds like that's over and above what's in ANWR. What lies next to other states?)

 

Part of the motivation here is the Hurricane Katrina angle. The media meme you've probably heard is that when Katrina hit Louisiana there was very little damage to the offshore rigs there (in fact according to the article linked above it was over 700,000 gallons from 124 leaks). The Florida take on this, the very common local perception, is that Louisiana was very ill-prepared for Katrina. We took eight direct hits over 18 months, including two storms equal or greater in strength to Katrina and ended up with only minor damage. In other words, whatever Louisiana can take, Florida can take much more easily. (Of course we weren't living below sea level, but again this is about perceptions.)

 

While I still think drilling may be a good idea, it's pretty clear that the reason offshore drilling is politically POPULAR right now isn't about extending the time we need to convert to better energy sources, but rather, as iNow has been saying, about lowering prices. That's the political angle, because that's the pain people are feeling and screaming about to their legislators.

 

Not all Florida politicians are buying it, however, with objections coming from both Democrats and Republicans. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (who represents the district next door to mine) on Wednesday accused the administration of exaggerating the impact that drilling would have. (Then she went on to boast about the potential of ethanol, but I guess nobody's perfect.)

 

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl20_schultz/DrillingFacts.html

 

That's the Florida political landscape at the moment, which I just thought you all might find interesting. I imagine the same sort of thing is happening in a lot of states right now that would never have considered offshore drilling before.

 

Yessiree, this is turning into one heck of an interesting year in politics!

Edited June 21, 2008 by Pangloss

[Pangloss]

For once we are in complete agreement.

 

And now I'm going to go and drown this annoying flu fever in water, the NEXT natural resource we'll need to fix.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, when the oil runs out, we can use coal to create volatile fuels. I believe the Germans did that during the war because they couldn't get oil. Of course, that would just be asking for an extra helping of global warming.

[ParanoiA]

OK, I'll take your point — and bury it under the geological reality where it belongs. You REALLY think that drilling a piddly little diddly squat amount of oil is going to make OPEC shake in their boots and produce heaps more to fix the world market?

 

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.

 

For the last time — they cannot fix this! The rising demand is simply too strong and the potential upstream too weak. So go ahead. Drill everywhere you can. You might lower the price for a year. Good luck with that. Increase peak oil denial, good luck with that. But sooner or later, the inevitability of the geological decline that we can ALREADY observe in our half of the oil world is marching towards us in ever greater bites out of our oil pie, So go ahead, make my day. Have oil spills on Californian and Florida beaches, increase global warming a bit more, but America will STILL be facing shortages in 5 or 10 years, STILL have the economy wreaked by the inevitable geology, STILL have to look at rationing protocols and emergency relocation and maybe even the army corps of engineers coming in to rush build stuff... because it's such an emergency!

 

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?)

 

Now I know that the market WILL react, and there WILL be some amazing new advances in maybe battery technology and hydrogen cars. But what good is a fire hose without a hydrant, a computer without a power point, and a hydrogen car without an ENORMOUS fueling infrastructure to fill 'er up? By most estimates, a hydrogen system is 20 years away, and many insiders are saying there are physics issues which mean EV's will be more cost effective.

 

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.

 

Again, let's be fair to ParanoiA. It appears that he has ammended his position (even if only slightly) after the numbers were shared. His points were quite valid, it's just that they did not scale appropriately, nor accurately reflect the scope of the issue. However, it appears that he has ammended his position.

 

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.

 

Actually, we're in a recession... see:

 

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.

[iNow]

Is your primary problem with oil the Co2 emissions?

 

Yes, that is my primary issue. However, to be clear, I also have secondary and tertiary issues. A lot of my passion for this comes from the fact that I live near an ALCOA mine, where they harvest coal. A few miles away from that mine, they have another for harvesting aluminum. I recognize the importance of these materials, but it really strikes a deep note with me when I watch the vast swaths of land being cleared, how the soil is completely ravaged, and also how the wildlife is literally driven out. On top of that, the plant life (trees, shrubs, plants, flowers, etc.) are devastated.

 

These are things we can and should avoid, but yes, if I had to prioritize my list of problems, CO₂ emissions would quickly reach the top.

 

 

 

 

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.

That's fair. As I mentioned previously, I accept that the price will likely drop (not enough to negatively impact the alternative energy work). My primary point is that the cost drop will be on the order of a buck or less per barrel, hence my use of the term "piddly."

 

I just see the costs outweighing the benefits, that's all.

 

 

On a broader note, we've become really stupid as a culture, and we do some really heinous things to animals and plants that make me ask myself, "how have we let ourselves become this way." Basically, my frustration goes far deeper than our pillaging of oil, and I argue in favor or a more intelligent and mature approach to our resources, our planet, and our future.

Edited June 21, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[ParanoiA]

On a broader note, we've become really stupid as a culture, and we do some really heinous things to animals and plants that make me ask myself, "how have we let ourselves become this way." Basically, my frustration goes far deeper than our pillaging of oil, and I argue in favor or a more intelligent and mature approach to our resources, our planet, and our future.

 

You know, I agree with all that. More careful intelligent approaches to future advancements, reverence to resources and quality of life and diversity of that life on this planet.

 

My only contention is that we haven't let ourselves become this way, as we've always been this way. What we've never been, is intelligent and thoughtful enough to do otherwise - until now.

 

I guess I just see it as mankind evolving yet more intelligently. This evolution seems to produce indictment of our past behavior, which rubs me the wrong way. Let's celebrate what we're becoming; that we're slowly, incrementally shedding our stupidity one issue at a time, one generation at at time, rather than to polarize the effort by using hindsight to punish our ancestors.

 

There's really nothing observed in nature to suggest violence and resource exploitation are not bred into the bone of every living thing. That we recognize it, is precious, is advanced thinking. That we haven't recongized it before, is just a function of evolution.

 

My two cents anyway. I have a tendency to be amazed that humans don't slaughter and pillage more than they do; that every decent thing done by a human had to overcome a hundred instinctive, nefarious impulses.

[iNow]

My only contention is that we haven't let ourselves become this way, as we've always been this way. What we've never been, is intelligent and thoughtful enough to do otherwise - until now.

That's a rather profound point, and I'm glad you raised it. There have been, however, small pockets of groups who HAVE been better. A quick example is native americans. That said, collectively as a planet, I think you're spot on.

 

 

.

 

My two cents anyway. I have a tendency to be amazed that humans don't slaughter and pillage more than they do; that every decent thing done by a human had to overcome a hundred instinctive, nefarious impulses.

 

Try not to watch news of what's been happening in Zimbabwe. It might have a deleterious effect on your amazement.

 

That's off topic, though.

 

 

 

Everyone is using the high gas prices to try motivating the public to go back on previous decisions which were the right ones. This idea strikes me as similar to the gas tax holiday that we recently discussed. It's short-sighted, misguided, and (IMO) ignorant.

[Pangloss]

Like rolling back the "Bush" tax cuts?

[foodchain]

Drilling for oil=bad regardless. Who wants to give money to something that evil? I don’t want to become the absolutist here but really fossil fuel is only a doomed future in every way. Any drilling will only increase this burdens eventual impact if not outright devastating halt to humanity. Just look at what is going on now, gas price in America would be mortally lethal in large to the populous in regards to spending money on something other then fossil fuel, it also draws heavy negativity in the global community from being such a precious commodity, this is a historical fact I would posit, but I do know that you can find endless historical aspects of fossil fuel use implanted in warfare, and with polluting water or possibly killing off sea life I am sure others will become more paramount on such a list.

 

Any president that does not support large scale change not only to “green” standards for technology but simply to get away from fossil fuel dependence is a loon.

[Reaper]

I'm a bit surprised that we didn't really start talking about changing our dependence when gas was at $1 per gallon. I'm sure that some of you guys here are old enough to remember when is was as low as 25 cents per gallon (Oil crises of the 70's anyone?).... Oh well.

 

If any of you have some insight onto the above, feel free to share.

 

 

Anyways, I know I seem to be a bit "alarmist" at times, but I do have good reason. Personally, I think we are moving much too slowly here. Because, in the four days that we have had this debate, the world has been consumed 328 million barrels of oil, with 1/4 of that consumed by the U.S. alone. And that's not even the tip of the iceberg; In Brazil we are still losing hundreds of square miles of forest per day, the world population has grown by 844,000 with the majority of them from 3rd world and developing nations, desertification still goes on in Africa by the tens and hundreds of square miles, who knows how many billions of tons of pollutants and CO2 were released, etc. etc.

 

 

ParanoiA and Pangloss, I understand your position here, but my feeling and conviction is that it's just simply too slow. It's basically like rearranging chairs on a sinking Titanic. Hopefully, you are right and the free market forces will force Americans to make the proper changes, but I think it just simply isn't enough; something else more needs to happen if the free market is to make a difference.

 

As iNow pointed out, we do live in a remarkably stupid culture, and as ParanoiA pointed out we live in a remarkably selfish and "wimpy" one too. My two cents is, is that in order to do this properly we need more then just short term solutions and market; we need a paradigm shift, and desperately.

 

 

But then again, why bother? What needs to be done (the Paradigm Shift, that is) simply won't happen until it is too late (well, at least for us Americans). I'm beginning to think a WWIII with China might actually be a good thing .

 

I once watched a show in which they listed that Americans don't like pain, but they are about to get a great deal of it very soon .

[ParanoiA]

Peak Oil Man, consider that the minimal advancement made in these markets is not a limitation of tech, but rather a limitation in the quantity of developers. You're talking about a market that has been essentially "asleep" due to the cheap access to oil based energy. There hasn't been that much attention.

 

Now you're going to see a relative flood of development and innovation. Diversity and quantity will do us a great service to this end.

 

Sorry you missed my point on the $500,000 did-it-himself green home. The point wasn't "Hey look, let's all buy $500,000 homes". The point was that one guy did it, using products available today, much of which wasn't even engineered specifically for this. He innovated and created an alternative energy solution - and he didn't use a factory.

 

The obvious conclusion being: If one guy can do it with stuff we already make, just imagine what could be developed when a competing business makes the effort - with real money, infrastructure, and etc.

 

The second point being: How does this kind of innovation get recognized and have a chance to compete with other ideas if you've decided to socialize the solution with government mandates and closed minded, archaic city planning techniques?

 

Come on. Think outside of the box. You're going to plan a city around an energy solution? Isn't that the same mistake you're crying about with oil and gas? Exactly how many times are you going to repeat the same behavior with the same negative result?

 

I'd rather think flexibly. I'd rather let the market weed out the stupid ideas from the smart ones. No need to "engineer" the whole freaking city with permanent structure, so we can all bitch about how stupid that was a hundred years from now when an even better energy solution comes around.

 

Let's let the innovators have their chance and see what they come up with. Capitalism hasn't done squat with this market yet, so it's premature to make any predictions really of any kind.

 

But hey, I see you've got your agenda all fixed up in your head and you've decided all other ideas will not work. I can't do anything with that.

[Reaper]

So go ahead.... "believe" in hydrogen if you wish. I can't help you there.

 

 

Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you here Peak Oil Man. I got a friend, whose a grad student by the way, who is just one of many people working on making hydrogen widely available. Of course, only part of the problem, but still, there are a great deal of people working on this and from what I've seen they are getting closer and closer to realizing the dream of a hydrogen economy.

 

And, I've heard Iceland is well on it's way to building an entire infrastructure based on that (but of course they take it from their geothermal sources...). In short, hydrogen is very viable. And so are the other alternatives (e.g. solar, nuclear, etc).

 

 

 

My problem with this plan of ours (to drill in order to buy off "more time") is that as I said before, it's just simply too slow (along with other environmental, societal, military problems) and it won't do us any good anyway. I think that, if the free market is to be truly effective in bringing out the alternatives in time, we would have to do something like putting tariffs on oil imports or something similar (along with dropping subsidizes for oil in general). Or, do what Europe is doing: putting much bigger taxes on it's use. A %50 tax on gasoline would probably do the trick, for example.

 

Personally, I wish that we had much smarter people deciding on our foreign policies and on regarding oil imports, but that's just that, a wish. I think here in America we are going to need a big kick in the groin first before we actually make the appropriate investments.

Edited June 21, 2008 by Reaper

[Reaper]

Have they (Australia) made any progress in making more energy efficient cities?