Is finding more oil a bad thing?

[BigDaddy44]

In light of the most recent announcement that a supposed new oil field has been found off the coast of Brazil, i've noticed dueling opinions.

On the one hand, we have those who lament any new oil finds as ultimate contributors to CO2 levels, and an increased risk of global warming. This is the "oil is bad" crowd.

On the other hand, we have those lamenting the high price of oil, and the fact that gas is now $3.50 a gallon. This is the "oil costs too damn much" crowd.

It occurs to me that you can be in one camp, and you can be in the other camp, but you cannot be in both camps. If you believe oil costs too much, then you must support and in fact applaud new oil finds. After all, oil is a scarce commodity, and if you don't want new oil to be found, you cannot complain about how much it costs.

Consequently, if you oppose new oil finds, you really can't complain about the cost of oil. Oil is a fungible commodity, and there's only so much of it. If more isn't found....well... the price will rise.

Incidently, this isn't an ANWAR discussion. I think we all oppose that. But...in the larger sense...is finding more oil a bad thing?

[marmar]

1. It's not bad in one sense....but at the same time it's like a junkie finding a new fix.

It delays the ending of the addiction.

[bean fidhleir]

10. I think that's an excellent simile

It truly is an addiction - and is killing us.

[lisa58]

2. If it prevents new technology, then it will be bad...

...if it carries us to a new technology, then it's probably good.

[robcon]

3. It's a very, very good thing, IMO.

n/t

[MADem]

4. Well, it fucks with the Peak Oil people....they're wanting it to happen NOW, so

they can say they told everyone so....

There's more oil out there. The trick is to get AT it. A lot of it is under the sea, and we worry about pollution and so forth...

I wish we'd find a way to make sturdy, affordable, efficient solar panels and battery systems that are sturdy, lightweight, reliable and efficient as well.

[Subdivisions]

46. "so they can say they told everyone so...."

Yea. That's what we're after.

:eyes:

[MADem]

50. Don't include yourself in that crowd if the shoe does not fit you.

But don't suggest, either, that I cannot comment on a plainly observable and observed phenom--that there are many scolds, here and elsewhere, who DE-fucking-LIGHT in passing on messages of doom and gloom, and who are OVER-eager to want to dance on graves and tell people that only THEY knew the future and "told us so." And they aren't just waiting for the worst to happen, they're EAGER for it to happen, and they'd hurry it along if they could.

Now, if you aren't one of these people, don't wear the fucking crown and drag out the royal "we" with a great big eye roll. No one was talking about YOU. You stepped up and volunteered to be identified in that group of overeager doomsday enthusiasts, and that's your issue, not mine.

:eyes: indeed.

[Mudoria]

53. Put very nicely...

:applause:

[Subdivisions]

57. Well, perhaps you have a point, but...

I've never met a single POer whose intention is to "DE-fucking-LIGHT in passing on messages of doom and gloom" just so they can say "I told you so".

While there are indeed those who want it to happen NOW, it's not for the reasons you suggest but because having it happen NOW will hopefully result in people FINALLY paying attention to the issue which so many refuse to accept. Not to mention that, for those who may wish that NOW is the time, there is certainly some concern of further damage to the climate patterns that allowed the rise of civilization.

Personally, I believe we're in a Catch 22 situation. We've built our entire existance on a finite substance which, one day, will no longer be available. And the harder we try to avoid it, the more damage is being done to our atmosphere and climate. Damage our children will live, or not, with.

Edited to add: Append my Post #45.

[MADem]

60. I simply have no patience for those who are anxious to see vast portions of our population

freeze to death in their homes, just to "prove a point." See, if we're past peak oil, we're past that tipping point. Of course, we'll never run out of SOME form of fuel, so long as Porgie can grow switchgrass or whatever on his so-called ranch. If the earth gets polluted enough, reproduction might slow, and that could help matters.

I stand by my sense that there are some people who want it to happen now because they delight in being harbingers of gloom and doom. For some, the glass IS half empty, and they like it like that.

I would rather see us, as a society, working towards alternatives. I'd like to see a President who would subsidize private research with tax dollars--I think it would be a good investment, so long as the board giving out the grants isn't full of "faith-based" scientists.

[Subdivisions]

63. Seems like such an "I told you so" would be a rather

empty satisfaction, considering the implications.

For my part, I'll continue to sound the alarms and hope for some substantial move towards mitigation, which is all I want.

[MADem]

66. Well, I didn't suggest the people adopting such an attitude were terribly bright.

But they are out there.

There's an odd desire by some folks to be "in the thick of it" no matter what "it" is...and even if "it" is "the end of the world as we know it."

Guess some people don't have sufficient excitement in their lives...

[The2ndWheel]

68. Nobody can escape the thick of it

We're always in it. We're always trying to run from it. We're always trying to make our attempts to get away from it more efficient. Every time we do that, we make it thicker.

[tama]

74. Patience, what's that?

There are no alternatives, really, to powerdown and/or dieoff. No deus ex machina to save us. And if there was, we're past that tipping point and it's too late.

I can very well understand the sentiment of those that are no more in denial but have accepted the fate of Western civilization, to be in some ways comparable to someone rather impatiently waiting for the fullfilment of his death sentence, to the end of agony.

[SammyWinstonJack]

80. ...

:thumbsup:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

47. But not green?

seriously the process of making batteries is pretty filthy in its own right..

[MADem]

48. Well, the green concept is folded into the word "efficient."

If the process were inefficient, it wouldn't be green.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

49. It can be efficent and unclean..

The batteries on some of the hybrids put amazingly nasty stuff into the enviro..

[MADem]

52. I guess we're having a definition difference. I think that anything

that makes a big, honking, fatass carbon footprint on spot A in order to make less of one in spot B, but still is not "green" when the whole ball of wax is averaged out, IS inefficient.

An efficient battery would be one that doesn't take a ton of energy to make, that doesn't pollute in the making of it, and that can be cleanly recharged, again and again, for many years. And, when it finally craps the bed, can be recycled easily. And cleanly.

Someone needs to invent such a thing...

[SteinbachMB]

5. Nice piece.

Finding more oil is good, IMO. We still need it, and will for some time to come. It won't reduce the present price of oil, there are too many other factors that keep the price high.

There is plenty of oil left, and the future will see many uses for it, and more efficient ones at that.

Technology, while slow at times, is a wonderful thing.

[tama]

75. We need to wake up

from the bad dream of technocentrism that promises and promises the promised land, but never found. The technology of carrot, on a stick, ahead of a donkey. Technology is indeed a wonderfull thing; but seeing what it takes, I'd prefer real to wonder.

[ck4829]

6. If big oil wanted us to find more oil, then we would be doing it

If we found more oil, then the price would drop, I don't think Exxon Mobil and Friends would want that, now would they?

[sam sarrha]

7. we need to conserve it for future generations, we can get about 85% of energy from alternate now, an...

conserve at least 1/2.. make the sacrifice of moving away from a capitalistic consumer society. society can survive on just taking care of its people, the Fascist corporatist capitalists are like a bunch of Fuck'n Monkeys at a salad bar, we have to stop this madness

Read naomi Klein's the "Shock Doctrine:the rise of disaster capitalism"

they are creating the disasters to destroy Democracy, they want to destroy civilization so that their Utopia will rise out of the ashes, they seem to believe blood sacrifice will aid the transition, they believe that torture is essential.. look at what they did in central/south america.. 240,000 dead, most tortured to death, Iraq is another attempt, torture there, a million civilians dead 20 million homeless displaced..

end the madness, this is insanity

[EstimatedProphet]

8. Of course not

Simply using it as fuel is the bad thing, instead of looking to more sustainable, less polluting fuels. Oil has enough other very important uses that it will be a setback for our society when it's gone, even if all our cars will be electric.

[wtmusic]

15. Oil will never be gone

but its scarcity will force people to use less for fuel, and recycle for those other very important uses.

[EstimatedProphet]

38. Which hopefully will begin to happen soon

the problem is, scarce oil impacts far more than just fuel. What will we use to lubricate our industries when the oil is too hard to find or pump? What about the impacts on plastics? Less oil means less of these things too, and we're not planning for that very well at all.

[wtmusic]

41. A shift away from disposable plastic is also a good thing

and I agree that we're not planning well at all. It's not going to happen with an "oil" president in the White House.

[mainegreen]

9. It would be nice to level out the backside of the Hubbert peak a bit.

Being that I like food and don't like the collapse of civilization.

[tama]

76. Civilization

Funny thing that, etymologically English words civilization, civilized, civil seem to come from Latin "civis", citizen of Roman Empire. In my language the etymology of equivalent of civilized comes from the word meaning 'chaste'. IMHO my language is more truthfull and wise.

Russel Means says that civilization or chastity and any revolution inside it should be judged on how it affects non-Europeans, ie. those who are not citizens of Empire. I agree with Russel.

[mainegreen]

81. See how a steep slide treats non-Europeans

and their civilizations.

I still want a more gradual backside to the peak.

[tama]

83. I see

And the point was that most non-Europeans have been colonized and "civilized" to various degrees by Europeans - those that have not been ethnocided so far.

[The2ndWheel]

11. Well, if conservation is actually part of the equation, then this would be

the perfect time to actually do it on a global scale. However, since we cannot conserve energy use until all 6.5 billion people on the planet has everything they need, and the billions of people that will be added to our population totals before that total even starts to level off have everything they need, then conservation isn't part of the game. Especially when it comes to oil.

It's not really a question of good or bad. We won't use less energy until everyone has everything. Using more oil will cause more CO2 problems, and using more solar and wind will cause their own environmental problems. It might not be CO2, but we live in physical reality, and every action has a consequence, we can't escape it. Again, not a good or bad question. We're too far down the road to do anything else. Anything that can be used will be used.

[RB TexLa]

12. Wasn't for me.

[KharmaTrain]

13. We Won't Be Able To Switch The Oil Off For A While

While I'd love to wish away oil tomorrow...for economic, political and environmental reasons, "we are where we are"...years of government and corporate antipathy towards the development of alternative energy has left us with lots of possibilities, few real solutions. Solar Panels and Wind Power have come a long way but nowhere near ready to replace fossil fuels or nuclear to power homes and businesses. Fuel cells look promising and I've been a long proponent of liquid hydrogen to replace our additiction to regular and ethel (I first studied about this during the oil crisis of 1973-74)...but the costs and the true committement by auto manufacturers to get these cars out in the public and more affordable is dubious at best (Hybrids are the new cash cows for the car companies...thus keep the supply low so the price remains high). We're years away from stepping away from moving away from oil as the "motion lotion" of this country...thus there needs to be a carrot and stick. If there's more oil to be found that can be used as part of a transition to other fuel sources, I'm all for it...but I doubt the sincerity of our government and their oil cronies...who have benefitted from high oil prices and have worked hard for years to keep us dependent.

Sadly, the one thing that will draw down our consumption of oil is our screwed up economy. As oil prices and everything else rises, fewer people will travel, goods will become tougher to find as the manufacture and distribution becomes too costly (or not profitable) and our economy continues to constrict.

[defendandprotect]

59. In order to save the planet we need immediate action -- ELECTRIC CARS . . .

We need to get all these gas-guzzlers off our roads and replace them with electric cars ---
See: "Who Killed The Electric Car?" ---

We can raise a corporation to do this if GM doesn't want to do it ---
and we can subsidize both production and purchase --

In fact, almost a dozen years ago now, OPEC understood this ---
they were openly stating that they understood that because of Global Warming oil production
would have to be STOPPED or CURTAILED -- and they were asking to be subsidized when that time came!!!

Global Warming is here and its strenth is increasing --
there's a 50 year delay in GW --- already here in NJ we are averaging temps 25 degrees above normal.
And we are only up to 1958 on the effects we are feeling ---
Consider what happened after that in America --- !!!

[defendandprotect]

61. In order to save the planet, we need immediate action -- ELECTRIC CARS ---

We need to get all these gas-guzzlers off our roads and replace them with electric cars ---
See: "Who Killed The Electric Car?" ---

We can raise a corporation to do this if GM doesn't want to do it ---
and we can subsidize both production and purchase --

In fact, almost a dozen years ago now, OPEC understood this ---
they were openly stating that they understood that because of Global Warming oil production
would have to be STOPPED or CURTAILED -- and they were asking to be subsidized when that time came!!!

Global Warming is here and its strenth is increasing --
there's a 50 year delay in GW --- already here in NJ we are averaging temps 25 degrees above normal.
And we are only up to 1958 on the effects we are feeling ---
Consider what happened after that in America --- !!!

[BigDaddy44]

64. Uhh.......

Where do you think the power will come from to provide the electricity to fuel those electric cars? You see, when you put a plug into the wall....something has to provide the juice. There's no electricity fairy.

That source would be either oil, or coal (also bad), or nuclear. There are other options (wind, solar, etc.), but none that can scale at the current time.

[defendandprotect]

70. That's nonsense . . . see the movie ---

In fact, we haven't even begun to realize what can be done with alternative means ---

Neither do we need to drag electricity across ten states in the Enron way ----

The source will no tbe either oil or coal --- it will probably be solar.

And -- yes, this can happen now ---

See the movie and update your thinking ---

[wtmusic]

14. Yes. Oil is bad.

Anything that reduces oil consumption is good. And if you think this find will make a significant reduction in the price of oil for the consumer, you're mistaken.

[BigDaddy44]

16. Of course one find won't make a difference

However, collectively, many finds DO make a difference. In the late 90's, oil was $10 a barrel. Supply was higher than demand.

So I assume you applaud high oil prices? "Anything that reduces oil consumption is good." Nothing will reduce it higher than high prices. I'm not trying to pick a fight; i just want to understand your position.

[wtmusic]

21. Yes, with a couple of caveats

-- high prices are not the result of price-fixing. I'm not at all convinced that's the case right now. President Obama enforcing the Hatch and Sherman Acts, IMO, would be enough to stabilize prices.

-- a tax writeoff for those who need it for business, subsidized by higher gas tax at the pump. Hummer owners are gonna have to pay for their filthy habit.

[BigDaddy44]

24. Oil is a world-wide commodity

And the price of a barrel of oil, which has a direct impact to the price at the pump, is sky high. If there is price fixing, then EVERYONE must be in on it. The Russians, the Nigerians, the Venezualans, the Saudis, the Brazilians, the Mexicans, and anyone else who owns oil fields and sells the oil. The worldwide market sets the price. In that market, enforcement of the Hatch and Sherman Acts wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.

[wtmusic]

27. The worldwide market used to set the price

"It used to be that U.S. gasoline prices were primarily determined by the price of crude oil.

Today, while far from a total reversal has occurred, the business of making fuel is taking a greater hand in determining crude oil prices.

<>

Some critics say refiners could have spent more money to expand capacity. "It hasn't been in their financial interest to do so," says Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at Public Citizen, a public-interest watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Instead, Mr. Slocum says, it's in the refiners' incentive to keep capacity as tight as possible."

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116042711013187294.html

Big oil whines about how expensive it is to keep with environmental regs, and yet 2007 was their most profitable year on record. I don't buy it.

[BigDaddy44]

30. Fair enough; do you support the development of new refineries?

And, you can refine all you want, but if the core product BEING refined is doubling, tripling, or quadrupling (sp?) in price...well....do the math.

[wtmusic]

32. The bottom line is this.

* Oil companies are reeling in record profits across the board. NET profits.
* The price of gas at American pumps is at record highs.
* Most importantly: there is almost zero variation in gas prices from station to station.

#1 and #3 put together, a hefty profit margin combined with little competition, points to collusion. However you slice it. It's not nearly as complicated as many would make it sound.

[tama]

77. Nope

It's a dollar nominated commodity. Which in practice (and somewhat simplified) means that the country of Federal Reserve can and does get oil by creating more dollars out of thin air, while those without FR are doomed to get their oil by toil and other natural resources. But now the Empire of "money as debt" is coming to end, and won't be missed.

[Subdivisions]

44. delete. wrong place.

[devilgrrl]

17. Whose oil is it?

Is it good that only few companies/individuals profit from it?

[BigDaddy44]

23. Its easy to demonize oil companies

However, it takes massive, MASSIVE resources to find, drill, extract, ship, and refine oil. And there are huge risks involved. Just ask the oil companies how good things were in the mid 80's when the market was glutted with oil and prices plunged.

And I would counter your claim that few profit from it. Are you a stockholder? Do you have a 401K? An IRA? A pension plan? If you have any of these, then you are most likely one of those profiting from the price increases.

[devilgrrl]

25. Do you work for SHELL? Nah, we wouldn't want to demonize oil companies...

look at all the good they do! :sarcasm:

[BigDaddy44]

26. No, I don't

I was simply answering your inquiry with facts. If you'd care to discuss facts, then we can have a discussion. Look at all the good they do? Do you own a car? Do you drive it? Does it use gas? Do you drill for, move, and refine the gas yourself? If not, I would postulate that you're a hypocrite if you think Shell is a horrible company, yet still use their product.

[defendandprotect]

55. Until we get ELECTRIC CARS no one who drives a gas-guzzler is a "hypocrite" . . .

anymore than anyone who is forced to use electricity generated 10 states away to light their home
or oil to heat their homes are "hypocrites."

[BigDaddy44]

62. They're only a hypocrite if they demonize the company providing fuel

You could always make your own fuel if the main suppliers are so horrid. You don't have to buy it from an oil company. Yet, saying they've never done anything good, and then buying their product to get you places (which i would assume is...good) is inherently contradictory.

[defendandprotect]

71. The oil industry is akin to the Mafia . . .

Look at the Exxon-Valdez fiasco and their response -- even now!

The oil industry has polluted every part of our lives, from farming to hospitals to war ---
Agent Orange, etal --

War by Monsanto -- food by Monsanto ---

Again --- when we have CHOICES --- THEN AND ONLY THEN, could drives be called hypocrites for
using the only means of moving our gas-guzzlers.

We need to nationalize our natural resources --
and move these criminals out of the business ---

See: "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

[BigDaddy44]

73. So we need to NATIONALIZE our natural resources...

to move these criminals out of the business....and move in our own government to control them since our government is NOT a bunch of cimin........

wait..... i got lost somewhere.....

[defendandprotect]

82. We need to round up the criminals in government . . . you might have noticed many of them

have oil industry backgrounds . . . ???

And as for moving better people into government --- let's start with the GOP controlled computers
and put them out of business and see what happens.

[defendandprotect]

58. The oil industry is heavily subsidized by taxpayers --- and as we can see right now . . .

Capitalism is really based on using taxpayer money for investments/research and the "owners" themselves taking few risks.

And, of course, the bail-outs with taxpayer money ---

"Privatizing profits and Socializing Losses" ---

Working for the oil industry is like working for the Mafia ---

[defendandprotect]

56. We need to nationalize our natural resources/oil --- and put ELECTRIC CARS on our roads !!!

In fact, the 1960 Democratic Platform which JFK ran on called for the nationalizing of our oil industry. . ..

[zbdent]

18. Finding new oil pisses off the ANWR invaders ...

you know, the ones who say that we need to drill the last pristine part of our nation to suck the oil out and sell it to Asia for more record profits uninhibited by regulation or taxes ...

[spanone]

19. no but we need to find alternatives.....quicky....

[Ganja Ninja]

20. I was hoping we would get a little farther along with

switching over to renewables before more was found.

[Avalux]

22. Oil is NOT a renewable fuel source. So even if we find more....

...we will eventually use it all (and fight over it while we're using it). There's a commercial (can't remember the co) where a bright cheery young woman exclaims that there's enough oil and natural gas to be drilled right here in the United States; enough to last us for 40 years!!

Idiotic.

We need solar, hydrogen and wind NOW.

[Junkdrawer]

28. FYI: The Brazil find is 1/500th the size of Iraq's reserves - and it's heavy crude offshore...

If you want a MASSIVE offshore heavy crude field, Venezuela's got one.

[nels25]

29. I notice that no one is commenting on how this affects food supply

we have been promoting the use of bio-fuels as an alternative to oil and all it's associated positives and negatives.

In so doing we have driven up food prices world wide to the point that the UN believes it to be rapidly approaching a crisis situation.

The impact of both high oil (IE gas and energy in general) and food is causing serious damage to the US economy (and this is on top of the bungling of Bush, Wall Street and Banks).

I would not be at all surprised that this will cause a strong backlash demanding that we drill in AN WAR and develop any all oil reserves (such as the reported large find in the gulf of Mexico of Texas) that we can.

We know that other nations will not be as reticent as us in developing oil resources if they have them.

We are faced with a faustian situation, and there are no easy ways out.

But one thing I will bet on in the short term, the nation is not ready to conserve our way out of this mess,or to tolerate a major disruption of the country's overall life style if it comes to believe that oil can be found and used to help alleviate the situation.

This may yet be and issue that we thought we had the clear advantage in, and it turns around and bites us.

[BigDaddy44]

31. Excellent point

If you support the development of bio fuels, you have to accept higher food prices. Its the only intellectually honest position.

[The2ndWheel]

42. Have to accept more than that

No matter what we do, there will always be negative consequences. That's why we can never seem to get ahead. We always end up with bigger and more complex problems with every big and complex solution we come up with.

Maybe if we stopped looking for the solution. Our solutions seem to always bring more people into an ever narrower set of problems. That leaves people with no flexibility. People aren't able to come up with diverse ways to manage their own lives. Everyone ends up increasingly having to follow the same rules no matter where they are. We look for the one fix. We look for the one theory. We look for the single way to organize life.

[tama]

79. Maybe if we stopped looking for the solution.

And started living, what lives we have. In Aymara language (spoken in Bolivia) future is behind the back and past is in front of a speaker. They not fix their gaze in the future maniacally trying to control future but keep it open, remembering truthfully what was and what is now.

[wtmusic]

34. Assuming that the only solutions are biofuels or oil

when nuclear/electricity is the best short-term solution. Leave oil in the ground.

[nels25]

43. I have no real problem with nuclear power.

I think it is pretty safe when operated with care and ability (of course I spent 4 years riding nuclear subs).

[defendandprotect]

54. We also use this stuff as "fertilizer" poisoning our crops and destroying nutrition --- !!!

[Blaze Diem]

33. Dakota:Persia on the Plains..

I posted this article last week..With 400 billion barrels of recoverable oil lying in the Bakken formation, under the northern plaind of the US & Canada, the new find offshore in S America and the Alaska reserves pale in comparason. We don't need to drill Alaska, though I have believed all along that the push for drilling there was motivated by political favors & promises.
After reading the article, I wonder if that is also why the information of Mr. Price was suppressed for so long.
Incidentally I DO support development of oil, ONLY if along with that, we see energy companies also supporting development of alternate sources. They certainly have the money to do so, but what is missing is clearly a conscience as to caring for the longevity of this planet.

Here is the article and the link:
Thank You
Blaze
------http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/DakotaOilPersiaOnThePlains.aspx

Dakota oil: Persia on the Plains?
Energy finds in North Dakota and Pennsylvania, as well as Canada, could give investors cheap, low-risk -- albeit unconventional -- entries into oil and gas now, and handsome profits later.

-------------------
Western North Dakota and western Pennsylvania, by which I mean the middle of nowhere, are on track to become the center of the universe for energy companies over the next few years as geologists, speculators and attorneys battle for control of two of the most important and unusual oil and gas finds of the past three decades.
(snip)
In recent years however, horizontal drilling and "fractionation" extraction techniques -- invented in U.S. labs and developed in fields from Russia to Argentina -- have opened the formation, and its output is expected to expand exponentially so long as oil prices remain above $60 a barrel. Experts figure it will yield 270 million to 500 billion barrels of oil over its lifetime, which could make the roughly 60 billion barrels of oil of the famed North Slope of Alaska look like a child's mud puddle...

[NickB79]

84. Actually, it's only rated at 4 billion barrels recoverable

The vast majority of the oil is locked away in oil shales buried deep underground, and as such can never be recovered. And 4 billion barrels of oil is 50 days of world oil consumption.

[Codedonkey]

35. It's bad if it allows for us to delay finding better solutions to the problem...

Otherwise it's simply delaying what we all know is going to happen at some point...

[wuushew]

36. Yes, without a doubt

n/t

[BigDaddy44]

37. I would assume then you have no problem with higher gas prices

[wuushew]

39. correct

[BigDaddy44]

40. Fine; thank you

I appreciate intellectual honesty :)

[Subdivisions]

45. The US uses 26,000,000 barrels of oil EVERY day. The world

uses 87,000,000 barrels EVERY day.

Now, even if a oil resevoir the size of Ghawar in Saudi Arabia is discovered tomorrow, it would take 10-12 years to get that oil online and it would last 5 years at today's consumption rates. That is not taking into account the growth in consumption that is projected to be 110,000,000+ barrels EVERY day by 2020.

And burning that much more oil will do unimaginable damage to the atmosphere and the climate under which all of our children and grandchildren will live. And, on top of that, add the financial devastation we're already handing over to them and you begin to see the nightmarish life they will lead...just 12 years from now.

[Junkdrawer]

78. And NPR gives equal time to a 16 yr. old that denies it all...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3159449&mesg_id=3159829

Lord help us....

[defendandprotect]

51. Burning of fossil fuels/oil is poisoning our planet ---

And are people complaining about the costs of cigarettes now --- or subsidies for the tobacco industry?

War and attempts to control the ME are making oil expensive --- and, of course, corporate greed.
Year before last, ExxonMobil made $36 BILLION . . . this year oil industry $123 BILLION.

Further, OPEC more than 12 years ago understood and spoke about a time when they would have
to STOP or CURTAIL oil production because of Global Warming.

Others who profit from this exploitation of this natural resource will want it to go on and on --

Global Warming isn't the only problem caused by our gas-guzzler burning petroleum --

We have petroleum-based fertilizers . . .

Heavy Chemicals - Coffee is the heaviest chemically treated food commodity in the world. The most common chemical used in coffee production is synthetic petroleum based fertilizers which slowly destroy the soil's fertility and seep into local water supplies.

which contaminate our foods and soil --- and destroy food nutrition --- soil and water!!!

We also have petroleum-based plastics ---
we have surrounded ourselves with PLASTICS everywhere ---
in hospital supplies/!, in bottling water/!, etal.

These products seep and leak into the product --
Also, we have heavy use of these plastics in toys for children and in many products for the
home.

Global Warming and pollution are the prices we are paying so that a few among us could control and exploit our natural resources ---

We might also from a higher perspective consider that this "oil" may, itself, be the earth's ballast ... and that removal of it could prove an eventual danger to our planet.

In fact, we already have had reports that the many dams and reservoirs our Army Corps of Engineers have built over the last 50 years are "impacting the rotation of the earth."

We need to nationalize our natural resources ---
and get ELECTRIC CARS on our roads ---

[ItNerd4life]

65. Alternative sources are too far away

Electric cars have been around for over 30 years. They just aren't practical yet. Think about how many batteries it takes just to run your vibrator....oops, I mean massager.

Battery technology has been slowly improving because of electronics. Other technologies have also been improving, but it takes decades, not years.

We need the oil to keep functioning, alternatives will come not from oil companies, but from enteprenuers.

The number of windmills is increasing dramatically, but it will be many, many years before it makes a dent in the overall electric supply. Same with any new technology.

[Fovea]

67. Finding more oil is not a bad thing

but using more oil most certainly is.

[erebusman]

69. either opinion is largely irrelevant to the truth...

The truth is we are running out of oil on a worldwide level. The US passed its peak oil between 1965-1970. The world oil peak is probably right about NOW; we just wont know it for sure until a few years after and steady decline over several years. The peak is probably already past, if not it will be very soon.

The oil peak includes projected discoveries of new oil.

New discoveries will not bring down the price of oil. New discoveries will also not drastically increase our pollution output levels. In fact world oil production is likely to be less and less from every year forward from this point. Therefore oil usage will also have to be essentially less and less over the coming years also - because we simply don't have enough left to consume more.

The truth is the US is a drug addict, who's running out of his drug and we'll do anything including destroying other nations and killing millions of their civilians to get more .. but it will run out. And when it does our withdrawal is going to be an ugly long recovery.

peace

[Subdivisions]

72. "The American way of life is not negotiable." - Dick Cheney

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/headlines/temporary_continuance_of_the_american_way_of_life_at_state_in_iraq

-snip-

Soon after September 11, 2001, the discussion by American government officials regarding the American response began to pour forth. A memorable one was by American Vice-President Dick Cheney, who before becoming vice-president had been leader of the largest oilfield supply company in the world. Dick Cheney said regarding the goals of "terrorists" and the "appropriate" American response: "The American way of life is non-negotiable".

That mindset explains why President Bush AND presidential nominee John Kerry BOTH favor continuance of the American war in Iraq and why vice-presidential nominee John Edwards said at the Boston convention: "We are going to WIN that war!" That is why the American military in Iraq is invading nonstrategic cities like Najaf with overwhelming force, disarming Iraqis and preventing the institution of a free democracy in Iraq while advocating the Orwellian concept of "Democracy by appointment" (by an occupying military power).

The American government officials and presidential candidates of both parties know all about Peak Oil and the fact that (UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES) the American way of life (as we know it) is nearing its end. Even if the U.S. were to successfully continue its policy and maintain control of Iraqi oil and even extend the policy and control all Persian Gulf Oil, the end is in sight for the consumerist American way of life.

The American way of life is on borrowed time. Perhaps that is what the Project for the New American Century was all about. Perhaps the PNAC was an acknowledgment that American hegemony and even American "normalcy" cannot extend beyond 100 years. The reality is that the American way of life, according to Petroleum geologists and analysts cannot be maintained as we have known it even for another twenty years, in all likelihood. In fact, some believe that the American way of life has already begun to irreversibly change, and for the worse, and the change will be catastrophic.

-snip-

More:

http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/musings/awol.php

http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/GlobalWarning/1024.html

http://www.satyamag.com/aug00/edit.html

http://www.kunstler.com/spch_Vermont%20Oct%2005.htm

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/03.16/05-diamond.html

http://www.dailyreckoning.com/Issues/2007/DR072607.html

[nemo137]

85. Yes and no

as the blog Futurismic pointed out, it may offer some relief for food prices. On the other hand, it'll put more CO2 in the air. So, meh. Shitstorm or shitshow, take your pick.