Allen Fuller's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/197289/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/138699-balancing-oil-supply-and-demand-oil-price-looks-like-it-s-bottoming?source=feed#comment-511531 511531 Wed, 20 May 2009 12:48:56 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/102339-ignore-the-hype-gold-as-currency-is-dead?source=feed#comment-292390 292390 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:31:10 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/96235-peak-oil-are-we-there-yet?source=feed#comment-276887 276887
> In response to Allen Fuller,
>
> I say oil is renewable because it is. See Eugene Island and the
> other wells that are refilling.

Oil is renewable if you are willing to wait millions of years.

The "refilling" of certain wells, most likely from reserves deeper in the crust, is an interesting phenomenon. Unfortunately, it is occurring at a rate approximately 100 times slower than our current consumption of oil. So, it's ludicrous to think we can just wait for a few wells to magically refill themselves and then suck it out again.

> Why did the US peak more than 35 years ago? Because that's when
> the radical environmentalists started their political engineering.
> The US peaked by design not by geology. We've only been drilling
> offshore in 2 states.

Your history is wrong. Oil peaked in the U.S. NOT because of radical environmentalists banning drilling etc. No, in fact, in the 1970s there was a DRILLING FRENZY as the oil industry tried to reverse the declines they were seeing. My sources show that drilling in this nation was at its highest around 1980. Yet this was unable to reverse the decline in the lower 48. Only new fields in Alaska allowed us to get a brief bump up in production, though we never achieved the rate of flow we had in 1970.

> How come this peaking pattern is seen in field after field and nation
> after nation around the world? What peaking pattern? Brazil and
> Russia certainly haven't peaked. I suspect it's because drilling
> isn't illegal there. Just a guess.

Russia is now peaking. Their production curve over the last few years shows a slowing in growth, and they are now on track for their first full year of actual declines.

Brazil's discoveries are tantalizing, but in the grand scale of things, only amount to a year or two of consumption. Besides, you have to drill through thousands of feet of rock and salt to get to it. Doesn't sound like the easy oil we have built our economy on. Some estimates indicate Brazil will peak, depending on how fast they produce, in the next decade or even sooner.

In many other nations that used to be great oil producers, we are seeing declines. The U.S., the North Sea (UK and Norway), now Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt, India, Syria, Venezuela (yes!), Yemen, and more. The full list of countries past their peak (by the way, they DON'T all have the environmental restrictions that supposedly, according to you, made the U.S. peak) now includes most of the oil-producing countries in the world. Only the true giant fields in a few nations, mostly in the Middle East, are keeping the world from hitting its peak. And even there, they are relying on old giants, not new discoveries.

> No such thing as so-called "fossil" fuel. In the history of the
> universe fossils have never miraculously or magically evolved into
> complex hydrocarbons: oilismastery.blogspot..../

The abiotic theory of oil production is pretty strongly discredited; look it up. Its proponents do NOT back their theory up with much in the way of verifiable statistics and facts. Even if it were true, again, the rate at which it supposedly gets produced in the crust, according to the theory's own proponents, is not enough to supply our current rate of consumption. So it's a red herring either way.

Peak oil is a historical fact, observable in the past at the level of oil fields, countries and regions; and it is pretty obvious to those who study the DATA and the FACTS that it is about to occur world-wide.]]> Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:40:53 -0400
> In response to Allen Fuller,
>
> I say oil is renewable because it is. See Eugene Island and the
> other wells that are refilling.

Oil is renewable if you are willing to wait millions of years.

The "refilling" of certain wells, most likely from reserves deeper in the crust, is an interesting phenomenon. Unfortunately, it is occurring at a rate approximately 100 times slower than our current consumption of oil. So, it's ludicrous to think we can just wait for a few wells to magically refill themselves and then suck it out again.

> Why did the US peak more than 35 years ago? Because that's when
> the radical environmentalists started their political engineering.
> The US peaked by design not by geology. We've only been drilling
> offshore in 2 states.

Your history is wrong. Oil peaked in the U.S. NOT because of radical environmentalists banning drilling etc. No, in fact, in the 1970s there was a DRILLING FRENZY as the oil industry tried to reverse the declines they were seeing. My sources show that drilling in this nation was at its highest around 1980. Yet this was unable to reverse the decline in the lower 48. Only new fields in Alaska allowed us to get a brief bump up in production, though we never achieved the rate of flow we had in 1970.

> How come this peaking pattern is seen in field after field and nation
> after nation around the world? What peaking pattern? Brazil and
> Russia certainly haven't peaked. I suspect it's because drilling
> isn't illegal there. Just a guess.

Russia is now peaking. Their production curve over the last few years shows a slowing in growth, and they are now on track for their first full year of actual declines.

Brazil's discoveries are tantalizing, but in the grand scale of things, only amount to a year or two of consumption. Besides, you have to drill through thousands of feet of rock and salt to get to it. Doesn't sound like the easy oil we have built our economy on. Some estimates indicate Brazil will peak, depending on how fast they produce, in the next decade or even sooner.

In many other nations that used to be great oil producers, we are seeing declines. The U.S., the North Sea (UK and Norway), now Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt, India, Syria, Venezuela (yes!), Yemen, and more. The full list of countries past their peak (by the way, they DON'T all have the environmental restrictions that supposedly, according to you, made the U.S. peak) now includes most of the oil-producing countries in the world. Only the true giant fields in a few nations, mostly in the Middle East, are keeping the world from hitting its peak. And even there, they are relying on old giants, not new discoveries.

> No such thing as so-called "fossil" fuel. In the history of the
> universe fossils have never miraculously or magically evolved into
> complex hydrocarbons: oilismastery.blogspot..../

The abiotic theory of oil production is pretty strongly discredited; look it up. Its proponents do NOT back their theory up with much in the way of verifiable statistics and facts. Even if it were true, again, the rate at which it supposedly gets produced in the crust, according to the theory's own proponents, is not enough to supply our current rate of consumption. So it's a red herring either way.

Peak oil is a historical fact, observable in the past at the level of oil fields, countries and regions; and it is pretty obvious to those who study the DATA and the FACTS that it is about to occur world-wide.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98996-roger-wiegand-severe-bull-market-ahead-for-gold?source=feed#comment-276754 276754 generationaldynamics.c... which has been extremely prescient with this whole credit crunch. They are predicting severe deflation and a second Great Depression. But I'm not 100% convinced. Other websites and analysts I highly respect are predicting hyperinflation, because that is the only lever left to the government. I'm not 100% convinced by their arguments either; it may be out of the government's hand. Right now I'm leaning 60% toward the deflationary position. I hold about 1/2 of my IRA in cash, with about 1/4 of it in precious metals and 1/4 in a handful of stocks I think are very speculative but have a huge upside potential if they succeed (that's my "playing around" money). Whatever happens now, it seems I'm destined to lose some money, but this way at least it shouldn't be all of it.]]> Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:15:19 -0400 generationaldynamics.c... which has been extremely prescient with this whole credit crunch. They are predicting severe deflation and a second Great Depression. But I'm not 100% convinced. Other websites and analysts I highly respect are predicting hyperinflation, because that is the only lever left to the government. I'm not 100% convinced by their arguments either; it may be out of the government's hand. Right now I'm leaning 60% toward the deflationary position. I hold about 1/2 of my IRA in cash, with about 1/4 of it in precious metals and 1/4 in a handful of stocks I think are very speculative but have a huge upside potential if they succeed (that's my "playing around" money). Whatever happens now, it seems I'm destined to lose some money, but this way at least it shouldn't be all of it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98824-the-chickens-come-home-to-roost-but-have-we-really-learned-from-our-mistakes?source=feed#comment-276063 276063
Obviously you can't store it up for retirement, but a food storage plan should be part of anyone's hedging against the risk of inflation, job loss, and so on.]]> Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:13:04 -0400
Obviously you can't store it up for retirement, but a food storage plan should be part of anyone's hedging against the risk of inflation, job loss, and so on.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/96731-the-new-normalcy?source=feed#comment-261643 261643
Actually, it is the Democrats who kept pushing for the mortgage industry to make all these sub-prime loans. I know life is hard for people at the bottom and I sympathize for their situation, but the solution is NOT to give them loans that they cannot repay! It just makes their lives more difficult later on as well as eventually putting the entire system at risk as we have seen.

]]> Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:09:59 -0400
Actually, it is the Democrats who kept pushing for the mortgage industry to make all these sub-prime loans. I know life is hard for people at the bottom and I sympathize for their situation, but the solution is NOT to give them loans that they cannot repay! It just makes their lives more difficult later on as well as eventually putting the entire system at risk as we have seen.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/96235-peak-oil-are-we-there-yet?source=feed#comment-259551 259551
Where are the mythical "400 billion barrels" in the Bakken formation? (The USGS came out and said that was a myth; real reserves are estimated at 4.3 billion, nothing to sneeze at but only a few months' worth at our current consumption.)

When are we going to see the "oil" from so-called "oil shale", and at what price? Where are we going to get all the water, and how can we possibly scale up production to the levels required? If you study these so-called solutions, they can only contribute a small part of our consumption over a long range of time.

I'm not a doomer; I believe we will have economic hardship but eventually we will move to true renewable sources like wind, geothermal, and solar. I hold out hope for fusion research as well. But it's time to admit reality regarding fossil fuels.]]> Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:09:12 -0400
Where are the mythical "400 billion barrels" in the Bakken formation? (The USGS came out and said that was a myth; real reserves are estimated at 4.3 billion, nothing to sneeze at but only a few months' worth at our current consumption.)

When are we going to see the "oil" from so-called "oil shale", and at what price? Where are we going to get all the water, and how can we possibly scale up production to the levels required? If you study these so-called solutions, they can only contribute a small part of our consumption over a long range of time.

I'm not a doomer; I believe we will have economic hardship but eventually we will move to true renewable sources like wind, geothermal, and solar. I hold out hope for fusion research as well. But it's time to admit reality regarding fossil fuels.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/96235-peak-oil-are-we-there-yet?source=feed#comment-259547 259547
Why do you say oil is renewable? Of course, at a certain cost, a decent chemist should be able to manufacture it from raw elements or basic compounds like water, carbon dioxide, etc. But at that point you need more energy to create it than you would get out of it. Where is your energy going to come from?

All you have to do is look at the fact that DISCOVERIES peaked 40 years ago. You can't pump what you haven't discovered. If peak oil is garbage, then where is all the new oil being discovered? There's a lag time between discoveries and production too, so even if discoveries suddenly and miraculously jumped WAY up, you'd still have a gap before they can contribute to existing production, which is projected to start declining around 2010 or so.

Economists point out that higher prices will cause supply to increase. This is true up to a point; higher prices make previously uneconomic oil suddenly worth extracting. But at some point the price itself will cause so much hurt to the economy that it won't matter that we have "more" oil available at that price.]]> Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:04:04 -0400
Why do you say oil is renewable? Of course, at a certain cost, a decent chemist should be able to manufacture it from raw elements or basic compounds like water, carbon dioxide, etc. But at that point you need more energy to create it than you would get out of it. Where is your energy going to come from?

All you have to do is look at the fact that DISCOVERIES peaked 40 years ago. You can't pump what you haven't discovered. If peak oil is garbage, then where is all the new oil being discovered? There's a lag time between discoveries and production too, so even if discoveries suddenly and miraculously jumped WAY up, you'd still have a gap before they can contribute to existing production, which is projected to start declining around 2010 or so.

Economists point out that higher prices will cause supply to increase. This is true up to a point; higher prices make previously uneconomic oil suddenly worth extracting. But at some point the price itself will cause so much hurt to the economy that it won't matter that we have "more" oil available at that price.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/91198-everything-they-tell-you-about-solar-is-wrong-travis-bradford?source=feed#comment-239475 239475
It is true that nuclear is subsidized by the public, but as energy costs rise all around, it becomes more cost-effective, especially as newer approaches are perfected as noted above. France successfully generates more than half of its electricity from nuclear, so it is clearly feasible.

That having been said, I much prefer renewable sources of energy such as solar. I am very enthusiastic about solar's potential. I just think that realistically speaking, we will need every source of energy we can get.]]> Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:26:59 -0400
It is true that nuclear is subsidized by the public, but as energy costs rise all around, it becomes more cost-effective, especially as newer approaches are perfected as noted above. France successfully generates more than half of its electricity from nuclear, so it is clearly feasible.

That having been said, I much prefer renewable sources of energy such as solar. I am very enthusiastic about solar's potential. I just think that realistically speaking, we will need every source of energy we can get.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/31884-can-royal-dutch-shell-s-shale-extraction-technique-end-peak-oil-paranoia?source=feed#comment-239461 239461 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:08:29 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/31884-can-royal-dutch-shell-s-shale-extraction-technique-end-peak-oil-paranoia?source=feed#comment-239458 239458
What really bugs me about many of the "drill here drill now" campaigners is that they seem to pay only lip service to alternatives but get so worked up about finding the last few relatively small and expensive sources of regular oil. I'm not disputing that we may need these to transition... I am not 100% against drilling...

... but while you are shouting DRILL DRILL DRILL, why not also DEMAND ALTERNATIVES TO OIL WITH THE SAME VOLUME PITCH?

Whether now or later, we will be forced to stop using oil. I say, bite the bullet and do it NOW. If the peak in oil comes much later, we'll be ready with a comfortable margin. If it is as soon as many analysts predict, we may just save our economy from a major disaster.]]> Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:06:06 -0400
What really bugs me about many of the "drill here drill now" campaigners is that they seem to pay only lip service to alternatives but get so worked up about finding the last few relatively small and expensive sources of regular oil. I'm not disputing that we may need these to transition... I am not 100% against drilling...

... but while you are shouting DRILL DRILL DRILL, why not also DEMAND ALTERNATIVES TO OIL WITH THE SAME VOLUME PITCH?

Whether now or later, we will be forced to stop using oil. I say, bite the bullet and do it NOW. If the peak in oil comes much later, we'll be ready with a comfortable margin. If it is as soon as many analysts predict, we may just save our economy from a major disaster.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/92208-geologist-in-terms-of-supply-and-demand-the-oil-peak-is-past?source=feed#comment-236719 236719
The free market is starting to move in the right direction, but if peak oil happens by 2010 as seems most likely, then it will be too little too late. As much as I prefer laissez faire policies in general, this is one that is too important to everything-- our economy, our national security, our prosperity, even our survival-- to leave solely in the hands of the whims of the market. The government should have been leading the market in the right direction 20 years ago, with a much more aggressive energy policy that promotes renewables and discourages waste.

We don't have 20 years so the best we can do is get aggressive now. Yet even now people want to deny what is going on.

On talk radio, I hear fairy tales of a "trillion barrels of domestic oil" that we could tap now if only the "radical environmentalists" would get out of the way. This is, to put it mildly, wishful thinking. For example, they claim the Bakken formation may have 400 BILLION barrels of oil. However, the USGS came out and pretty much said that's a myth. Their estimate of technically recoverable oil is 4.3 billion-- nothing to be sneezed at, but nothing that will save us either.

It's time to bite the bullet. It's time for electric cars and improved public transporation. It's time for solar and wind, nuclear, geothermal, and everything else that we can pursue. Postponing what we must eventually do anyways only heightens the risks.]]> Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:55:09 -0400
The free market is starting to move in the right direction, but if peak oil happens by 2010 as seems most likely, then it will be too little too late. As much as I prefer laissez faire policies in general, this is one that is too important to everything-- our economy, our national security, our prosperity, even our survival-- to leave solely in the hands of the whims of the market. The government should have been leading the market in the right direction 20 years ago, with a much more aggressive energy policy that promotes renewables and discourages waste.

We don't have 20 years so the best we can do is get aggressive now. Yet even now people want to deny what is going on.

On talk radio, I hear fairy tales of a "trillion barrels of domestic oil" that we could tap now if only the "radical environmentalists" would get out of the way. This is, to put it mildly, wishful thinking. For example, they claim the Bakken formation may have 400 BILLION barrels of oil. However, the USGS came out and pretty much said that's a myth. Their estimate of technically recoverable oil is 4.3 billion-- nothing to be sneezed at, but nothing that will save us either.

It's time to bite the bullet. It's time for electric cars and improved public transporation. It's time for solar and wind, nuclear, geothermal, and everything else that we can pursue. Postponing what we must eventually do anyways only heightens the risks.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/90915-clean-energy-etfs-face-off?source=feed#comment-230597 230597 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:28:33 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/89423-nobody-cares-how-the-energy-crisis-gets-solved?source=feed#comment-230592 230592 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:23:05 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/89423-nobody-cares-how-the-energy-crisis-gets-solved?source=feed#comment-230586 230586 pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/.... They include the P95, P50 and P5 estimates, but they are labeled F95, F50 and F5 instead, which is commonly done in the industry.

Find out the facts for yourselves, folks... don't believe these figures of "trillions" that are just thrown around for political gain.]]> Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:19:55 -0400 pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/.... They include the P95, P50 and P5 estimates, but they are labeled F95, F50 and F5 instead, which is commonly done in the industry.

Find out the facts for yourselves, folks... don't believe these figures of "trillions" that are just thrown around for political gain.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/89423-nobody-cares-how-the-energy-crisis-gets-solved?source=feed#comment-230579 230579 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:15:39 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/89423-nobody-cares-how-the-energy-crisis-gets-solved?source=feed#comment-230576 230576
Incidentally, I don't know where you get this 2 trillion figure for the Bakken formation. The USGS just this year put out an estimate of 3 to 4.3 billion: (www.usgs.gov/newsroom/...). Your figure is almost 1000 times higher!

Historically, these wildly optimistic projections do not come true; the actual economically recoverable oil tends to stay BELOW the P50 estimate. (Estimates of recoverable oil tend to come in 3 figures: the P95, P50 and P5 figures. A P95 estimate of 500 million barrels indicates a confidence of 95% that we would recover at least that amount of oil; in contrast, a P5 estimate of 90 billion barrels indicates just a 5% chance of recovering 90 billion barrels.)

However, I have noticed a lot of talk-show boys and the like trumpeting how we have TRILLIONS of barrels of domestic oil "just waiting around to be extracted". To get these figures they quite often throw together the most wildly optimistic estimates they can find, usually the P95 estimates plus wildly optimistic estimates of oil we could recover from non-conventional sources such as oil shale, which have not been successful commercially to date.

They cobble together these wild estimates and then throw the numbers around as if they were undeniable facts. All of this is POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. I say, beware. If we do end up with a crisis and we are not ready, it will largely be because of this disinformation. Again, I'm generally conservative but I really am getting disgusted with the political degradation of the discussion here on both sides including the Republicans.]]> Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:11:49 -0400
Incidentally, I don't know where you get this 2 trillion figure for the Bakken formation. The USGS just this year put out an estimate of 3 to 4.3 billion: (www.usgs.gov/newsroom/...). Your figure is almost 1000 times higher!

Historically, these wildly optimistic projections do not come true; the actual economically recoverable oil tends to stay BELOW the P50 estimate. (Estimates of recoverable oil tend to come in 3 figures: the P95, P50 and P5 figures. A P95 estimate of 500 million barrels indicates a confidence of 95% that we would recover at least that amount of oil; in contrast, a P5 estimate of 90 billion barrels indicates just a 5% chance of recovering 90 billion barrels.)

However, I have noticed a lot of talk-show boys and the like trumpeting how we have TRILLIONS of barrels of domestic oil "just waiting around to be extracted". To get these figures they quite often throw together the most wildly optimistic estimates they can find, usually the P95 estimates plus wildly optimistic estimates of oil we could recover from non-conventional sources such as oil shale, which have not been successful commercially to date.

They cobble together these wild estimates and then throw the numbers around as if they were undeniable facts. All of this is POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. I say, beware. If we do end up with a crisis and we are not ready, it will largely be because of this disinformation. Again, I'm generally conservative but I really am getting disgusted with the political degradation of the discussion here on both sides including the Republicans.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/90330-study-u-s-has-118-year-supply-of-natural-gas?source=feed#comment-227880 227880
You do have to factor in increasing use whenever you hear these estimates. If demand grows at 2% per year (which is a common assumption) then 118 years' worth at 2007 levels actually lasts for only 61 years.

If demand grows at 5% per year (which is likely, as people switch away from more expensive oil), then 118 years' worth at 2007 levels actually lasts for only 39 years.]]> Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:43:36 -0400
You do have to factor in increasing use whenever you hear these estimates. If demand grows at 2% per year (which is a common assumption) then 118 years' worth at 2007 levels actually lasts for only 61 years.

If demand grows at 5% per year (which is likely, as people switch away from more expensive oil), then 118 years' worth at 2007 levels actually lasts for only 39 years.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/89423-nobody-cares-how-the-energy-crisis-gets-solved?source=feed#comment-225527 225527
Remember after all that peak oil is not the sudden absence of oil. It will decline, but there will still be enough oil, in my opinion, to allow us to transition. Granted, our economy may be in shambles by the time we attempt serious switchover to alternatives, but it's not like there will be no oil with which to create the photovoltaics. That's what gets me about some people like Kunstler. They get a little too carried away with themselves and don't give hardly _any_ room for human inventiveness and ingenuity.

I agree that our lifestyles will have to be severely curtailed, but I think the impetus for that will first be economic depression before a seriously severe shortage of oil. I do see a transition to a post-oil economy, a very bumpy one at this rate, and ultimately, a lifestyle that provides for our needs but is far from the profligate lifestyles of the present.

The main barrier to our starting this transition is the refusal to accept reality by the majority and especially the politicians. I don't think this barrier can stand up for more than a few years longer.]]> Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:55:46 -0400
Remember after all that peak oil is not the sudden absence of oil. It will decline, but there will still be enough oil, in my opinion, to allow us to transition. Granted, our economy may be in shambles by the time we attempt serious switchover to alternatives, but it's not like there will be no oil with which to create the photovoltaics. That's what gets me about some people like Kunstler. They get a little too carried away with themselves and don't give hardly _any_ room for human inventiveness and ingenuity.

I agree that our lifestyles will have to be severely curtailed, but I think the impetus for that will first be economic depression before a seriously severe shortage of oil. I do see a transition to a post-oil economy, a very bumpy one at this rate, and ultimately, a lifestyle that provides for our needs but is far from the profligate lifestyles of the present.

The main barrier to our starting this transition is the refusal to accept reality by the majority and especially the politicians. I don't think this barrier can stand up for more than a few years longer.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/89423-nobody-cares-how-the-energy-crisis-gets-solved?source=feed#comment-225111 225111
If that's true, most Americans will be sorely disappointed. It will only end when we break our dependency on fossil fuels. And that probably means *gasp* a change in our lifestyles! Oops, that violates the concept of our God-given right to do whatever the &*# we please. Forget I mentioned that...

"6. How much money it will take to develop the oil shale deposits in the Rocky Mountains, just spend it."

What if it takes more money than we have? Where is the limit? What if we spend hundreds of billions and only get a relatively small flow from it?

"8. How many nuclear reactors, wind farms or solar panels we need to ensure a reliable electric supply, just build them all."

Now that's something I can agree with. We will need them all, and will probably still have to accept a lower energy budget than we are used to.

"9. How we use coal, as long as reasonable efforts are taken to minimize its adverse effects."

Actually, most Americans don't seem to care even if we don't do ANYTHING about its adverse effects, though they should. They should also care that our coal won't last us "200 years" like most people think it will. Exponential growth will cut that down to 60 years or less, people, it's basic math...

"10. How Items #1-9 are accomplished, so long as our government drops whatever else it's doing and allows it all to start today!"

AMEN to the idea of focusing on this as a national priority.

I don't agree with the idea that drilling more will save us. If we drill as part of the package, I won't mind. But if all we do is focus on drilling and only pay lip service to the rest, we are doomed. There's just not enough there for us to close the gap.]]> Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:23:09 -0400
If that's true, most Americans will be sorely disappointed. It will only end when we break our dependency on fossil fuels. And that probably means *gasp* a change in our lifestyles! Oops, that violates the concept of our God-given right to do whatever the &*# we please. Forget I mentioned that...

"6. How much money it will take to develop the oil shale deposits in the Rocky Mountains, just spend it."

What if it takes more money than we have? Where is the limit? What if we spend hundreds of billions and only get a relatively small flow from it?

"8. How many nuclear reactors, wind farms or solar panels we need to ensure a reliable electric supply, just build them all."

Now that's something I can agree with. We will need them all, and will probably still have to accept a lower energy budget than we are used to.

"9. How we use coal, as long as reasonable efforts are taken to minimize its adverse effects."

Actually, most Americans don't seem to care even if we don't do ANYTHING about its adverse effects, though they should. They should also care that our coal won't last us "200 years" like most people think it will. Exponential growth will cut that down to 60 years or less, people, it's basic math...

"10. How Items #1-9 are accomplished, so long as our government drops whatever else it's doing and allows it all to start today!"

AMEN to the idea of focusing on this as a national priority.

I don't agree with the idea that drilling more will save us. If we drill as part of the package, I won't mind. But if all we do is focus on drilling and only pay lip service to the rest, we are doomed. There's just not enough there for us to close the gap.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/89423-nobody-cares-how-the-energy-crisis-gets-solved?source=feed#comment-225095 225095
Back to the energy discussion, I encourage anyone interested in issues of resource availability to view Dr. Albert Bartlett's lecture on Arithmetic, Population and Energy.

The key concept is simple. Have you ever wondered how our economies could continue to grow infinitely into the future, in a finite world? That seems to be the view of most economists. Certainly we have improved efficiency and have overcome many of the limitations we have faced in the past. And we will overcome many more. Our human ingenuity is amazing. Yet if you project infinite growth into the future, it becomes obvious that you will eventually hit limitations that you cannot overcome. If our population grows at 2% per year, in several hundreds of years we will have one person per square meter on the earth. Now obviously that's not possible, so sometime before then, our growth will have to stop. Either we stop our growth intentionally, or we hit some fundamental limitation that we cannot overcome, and we crash. If you want to deny this, please exit the land of rational thought.]]> Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:12:41 -0400
Back to the energy discussion, I encourage anyone interested in issues of resource availability to view Dr. Albert Bartlett's lecture on Arithmetic, Population and Energy.

The key concept is simple. Have you ever wondered how our economies could continue to grow infinitely into the future, in a finite world? That seems to be the view of most economists. Certainly we have improved efficiency and have overcome many of the limitations we have faced in the past. And we will overcome many more. Our human ingenuity is amazing. Yet if you project infinite growth into the future, it becomes obvious that you will eventually hit limitations that you cannot overcome. If our population grows at 2% per year, in several hundreds of years we will have one person per square meter on the earth. Now obviously that's not possible, so sometime before then, our growth will have to stop. Either we stop our growth intentionally, or we hit some fundamental limitation that we cannot overcome, and we crash. If you want to deny this, please exit the land of rational thought.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/89423-nobody-cares-how-the-energy-crisis-gets-solved?source=feed#comment-225056 225056
I hope we can all agree that we won't be burning oil forever. That at some point we will have to transition away from oil to other sources of energy, preferably renewable and clean ones, which don't run out.

THEN WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH MAKING THE STINKING TRANSITION NOW?!?

If peak oil predictions are right, then we may just save ourselves (though it may be too late by some predictions).

If peak oil predictions are wrong, we are prepared that much sooner. AND we save money in the long run.

Studies have shown that investing in renewable energy saves money over the long range. Even with relatively expensive solar panels, those who have "bitten the bullet" and installed them in spite of their high cost have usually ended up glad that they did, even economically speaking. The problem is that the payback is usually too far out for most people's economic thinking. All they can see is the big up-front cost.

As a society, shouldn't we be steering in the direction of technologies that have a long-term future? What is it with people that they want to just blow this all off, act like there's nothing wrong with burning up precious resources like there's no tomorrow, and only pay lip service to alternatives?

Finally, this is also a matter of national security. Our dependence on foreign oil is crippling. It bends our national policy, limits our options in dealing with certain countries, and exports our wealth. We use 21 million barrels per day, but only produce about 8 million per day.

If you think we can close that gap, more than doubling our current production, by drilling more and using our own national resources, you are dreaming. After U.S. production peaked in the 1970s, we started drilling frantically right and left, but that didn't halt the decline in oil production. Adding the "vast" oil riches of Alaska was the biggest thing we could manage, and that only provided a bump up on the downward slope of production. Drilling offshore or in the Arctic will be a similar bump on our downward slide. It would take HUGE national effort, plus luck (that all the optimistic projections are true) just to halt the current slide in production. And to make up the 60% gap between our production and our usage? Don't delude yourself.

Sure, go ahead and drill, don't leave ANY resources for our children, but at LEAST at the same time make an AGGRESSIVE effort to find alternatives! There is no other way we can become truly energy independent.]]> Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:53:10 -0400
I hope we can all agree that we won't be burning oil forever. That at some point we will have to transition away from oil to other sources of energy, preferably renewable and clean ones, which don't run out.

THEN WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH MAKING THE STINKING TRANSITION NOW?!?

If peak oil predictions are right, then we may just save ourselves (though it may be too late by some predictions).

If peak oil predictions are wrong, we are prepared that much sooner. AND we save money in the long run.

Studies have shown that investing in renewable energy saves money over the long range. Even with relatively expensive solar panels, those who have "bitten the bullet" and installed them in spite of their high cost have usually ended up glad that they did, even economically speaking. The problem is that the payback is usually too far out for most people's economic thinking. All they can see is the big up-front cost.

As a society, shouldn't we be steering in the direction of technologies that have a long-term future? What is it with people that they want to just blow this all off, act like there's nothing wrong with burning up precious resources like there's no tomorrow, and only pay lip service to alternatives?

Finally, this is also a matter of national security. Our dependence on foreign oil is crippling. It bends our national policy, limits our options in dealing with certain countries, and exports our wealth. We use 21 million barrels per day, but only produce about 8 million per day.

If you think we can close that gap, more than doubling our current production, by drilling more and using our own national resources, you are dreaming. After U.S. production peaked in the 1970s, we started drilling frantically right and left, but that didn't halt the decline in oil production. Adding the "vast" oil riches of Alaska was the biggest thing we could manage, and that only provided a bump up on the downward slope of production. Drilling offshore or in the Arctic will be a similar bump on our downward slide. It would take HUGE national effort, plus luck (that all the optimistic projections are true) just to halt the current slide in production. And to make up the 60% gap between our production and our usage? Don't delude yourself.

Sure, go ahead and drill, don't leave ANY resources for our children, but at LEAST at the same time make an AGGRESSIVE effort to find alternatives! There is no other way we can become truly energy independent.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/89423-nobody-cares-how-the-energy-crisis-gets-solved?source=feed#comment-225013 225013
You need to do your OWN critical thinking. Critical of the talk show boys you are probably listening to.

I'm pretty conservative, but have always thought conservatives should conserve resources as well as the values and traditions that made this country great.

What is conservative about spending our resources like there's no tomorrow, leaving nothing for our children and grandchildren?

You challenge the idea that there is an actual shortage in energy. Again, I say, engage your critical thinking and don't just accept the idea that our country has "plentiful" reserves of oil. It depends on what you mean by that. I heard one guy on the radio say we have a TRILLION barrels of oil in this country. That is laughable. Best industry estimates are that there are one trillion barrels of recoverable oil left in the WORLD. In fact, U.S. *proven* *recoverable* oil is around 21 billion barrels. LOOK IT UP. This guy on the radio was throwing together the most optimistic figures (not proven recoverable reserves, but the wildly high estimates of possible reserves, without regard to recoverability) along with oil shale, tar sands and everything else he could think of, to make his case. If you look at history, the oil we actually get out of the ground is much closer to the estimates of proven recoverable oil than to the estimates of possible oil that he was using.

In one sense he had a point, and so do you. "Oil" as a natural resource IS plentiful in the ground in various places. But the conventional, recoverable oil that drives our economy, that we used to be able to extract for such a cheap price, is becoming scarce. Unconventional oil can be recovered and used to some degree, but it costs more both in dollars and in energy. Thus, our crisis is one of a shortage of the cheap energy we've grown used to having.

Everything ozzy43 mentioned has a HUGE impact on the discussion. I hate to be personal, but it is clear he is far more educated than you are on the subject. EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Investment) is the measure of how much net energy you get after you spend the energy to get the stuff out of the ground and refine it. For unconventional sources, EROEI is very low. Most of the oil shale (not actually oil, but kerogen) for example, may not even have an EROEI that makes it worth extracting. Though some of it does, it takes huge investments in capital and time to get a relatively slow flow of oil.

The real charlatans are the ones spreading these lies about how we don't need to conserve, and how if we only drilled on our own land we would be home free. They are the ones encouraging that we use up our children's and grandchildren's resources LITERALLY like there's no tomorrow. They are the ones threatening our children's economic future.

I refer you to theoildrum.com, energybulletin.com, and various factual information you can look up for yourself on the Internet. Look for the fundamentals. Cut through the hype. The reality is that cheap oil is gone FOREVER... or at least until we find an alternative technology that is cheaper.]]> Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:33:38 -0400
You need to do your OWN critical thinking. Critical of the talk show boys you are probably listening to.

I'm pretty conservative, but have always thought conservatives should conserve resources as well as the values and traditions that made this country great.

What is conservative about spending our resources like there's no tomorrow, leaving nothing for our children and grandchildren?

You challenge the idea that there is an actual shortage in energy. Again, I say, engage your critical thinking and don't just accept the idea that our country has "plentiful" reserves of oil. It depends on what you mean by that. I heard one guy on the radio say we have a TRILLION barrels of oil in this country. That is laughable. Best industry estimates are that there are one trillion barrels of recoverable oil left in the WORLD. In fact, U.S. *proven* *recoverable* oil is around 21 billion barrels. LOOK IT UP. This guy on the radio was throwing together the most optimistic figures (not proven recoverable reserves, but the wildly high estimates of possible reserves, without regard to recoverability) along with oil shale, tar sands and everything else he could think of, to make his case. If you look at history, the oil we actually get out of the ground is much closer to the estimates of proven recoverable oil than to the estimates of possible oil that he was using.

In one sense he had a point, and so do you. "Oil" as a natural resource IS plentiful in the ground in various places. But the conventional, recoverable oil that drives our economy, that we used to be able to extract for such a cheap price, is becoming scarce. Unconventional oil can be recovered and used to some degree, but it costs more both in dollars and in energy. Thus, our crisis is one of a shortage of the cheap energy we've grown used to having.

Everything ozzy43 mentioned has a HUGE impact on the discussion. I hate to be personal, but it is clear he is far more educated than you are on the subject. EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Investment) is the measure of how much net energy you get after you spend the energy to get the stuff out of the ground and refine it. For unconventional sources, EROEI is very low. Most of the oil shale (not actually oil, but kerogen) for example, may not even have an EROEI that makes it worth extracting. Though some of it does, it takes huge investments in capital and time to get a relatively slow flow of oil.

The real charlatans are the ones spreading these lies about how we don't need to conserve, and how if we only drilled on our own land we would be home free. They are the ones encouraging that we use up our children's and grandchildren's resources LITERALLY like there's no tomorrow. They are the ones threatening our children's economic future.

I refer you to theoildrum.com, energybulletin.com, and various factual information you can look up for yourself on the Internet. Look for the fundamentals. Cut through the hype. The reality is that cheap oil is gone FOREVER... or at least until we find an alternative technology that is cheaper.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/86760-pickens-plan-comes-in-the-nick-of-time?source=feed#comment-213478 213478
The biggest problem facing America is that we need 10 or 20 "Pickens' Plans" in the next 10 to 20 years. We need wind, solar, nuclear, ocean power, electric cars, improvements to our power grids, grid-scale energy storage, and yes, we DO need to drill for whatever oil we have left.

Currently, worldwide, we only find about 1 new barrel of oil for every 6 that we use up, and this is finally starting to catch up with us. Coal is a huge resource but if we switch everything over to it (e.g. coal to oil liquification) then we'll use up a supposedly 200-year supply much faster than we expect. Oil shale may help, but we can't extract it fast enough to replace all our oil. Moreover, it is expensive and consumes a lot of energy... leaving a much smaller "net" gain in energy than many people expect.

In the LONG run (and that's how we should be viewing things instead of this stupid stopgap mentality you see from politicians and partisans), if it's not renewable, it's not going to be an option, whether we like it or not. So that's where the biggest push should be. Take Nanosolar's approach, for example. They have just built, I think, the biggest solar plant in the world, and by some calculations, can provide solar electricity for cheaper than coal (over the life of the solar panel). However even though it's the largest plant in the world, we need 100 of them, not just 1. We also need to develop grid-scale energy storage technologies because the sun doesn't shine at night!

So yes, Pickens' plan is a good start. Let's do it and let's do 10 times more in the next 10-20 years.]]> Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:30:24 -0400
The biggest problem facing America is that we need 10 or 20 "Pickens' Plans" in the next 10 to 20 years. We need wind, solar, nuclear, ocean power, electric cars, improvements to our power grids, grid-scale energy storage, and yes, we DO need to drill for whatever oil we have left.

Currently, worldwide, we only find about 1 new barrel of oil for every 6 that we use up, and this is finally starting to catch up with us. Coal is a huge resource but if we switch everything over to it (e.g. coal to oil liquification) then we'll use up a supposedly 200-year supply much faster than we expect. Oil shale may help, but we can't extract it fast enough to replace all our oil. Moreover, it is expensive and consumes a lot of energy... leaving a much smaller "net" gain in energy than many people expect.

In the LONG run (and that's how we should be viewing things instead of this stupid stopgap mentality you see from politicians and partisans), if it's not renewable, it's not going to be an option, whether we like it or not. So that's where the biggest push should be. Take Nanosolar's approach, for example. They have just built, I think, the biggest solar plant in the world, and by some calculations, can provide solar electricity for cheaper than coal (over the life of the solar panel). However even though it's the largest plant in the world, we need 100 of them, not just 1. We also need to develop grid-scale energy storage technologies because the sun doesn't shine at night!

So yes, Pickens' plan is a good start. Let's do it and let's do 10 times more in the next 10-20 years.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/86684-buying-gold-for-oil-like-george-soros?source=feed#comment-213453 213453
Oil is a fossil fuel, both literally and figuratively. It is going the way of the dinosaurs. It will become increasingly expensive until the pain is so bad we will flee to alternatives, or our economy collapses enough to reduce demand. Its recent drop in value was just a small correction on the overall larger (multi-year) upward trend. We will probably see oil prices stagnating around this level for the next few months or even a year or two, but in the long term, if the prices haven't destroyed demand sufficiently already, they will head back up again.

We need to stop looking at the daily and weekly view and take a good hard look at the bigger picture.]]> Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:15:45 -0400
Oil is a fossil fuel, both literally and figuratively. It is going the way of the dinosaurs. It will become increasingly expensive until the pain is so bad we will flee to alternatives, or our economy collapses enough to reduce demand. Its recent drop in value was just a small correction on the overall larger (multi-year) upward trend. We will probably see oil prices stagnating around this level for the next few months or even a year or two, but in the long term, if the prices haven't destroyed demand sufficiently already, they will head back up again.

We need to stop looking at the daily and weekly view and take a good hard look at the bigger picture.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85220-implementing-pickens-plan-for-public-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-206874 206874
People (many of the commenters above) need to get past their political biases that color their view of the world. It's a whole different world now than even just a few years ago. The laissez-faire approach will cause more chaos than a smart directed policy. I'm conservative but I see the huge problem we face and if we don't move together as a nation, with smarter policies that SHIFT US INTENTIONALLY AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS, we'll be sunk. As it is, it is already a huge enough challenge that even if we could all get on the same page today it would still be difficult to avoid massive repercussions.

If we don't buckle down and voluntarily apply some short-term pain (relatively speaking; it could still be years or even decades), then we are in for some real long-term hurt.

I like the idea of shifting taxes away from income and onto fossil fuels. Some will say this will stifle economic growth. Earth to La-La-Land! It's being stifled already and if we don't manage the situation, not only economic growth but even economic SURVIVAL will be crushed. On the flip side, taxes on income also stifle economic growth, so by shifting from income tax to fuel tax we are just moving sideways, but with beneficial side effects (getting off our crack addiction to oil).

If we had plenty of time, I'd agree that a free-market solution would be best. But there is no longer time. And the market needs direction; in the past, oil set the direction for the market; but currently no single player or technology is big enough to give direction to the market. The result is that the market doesn't commit itself to a coherent course and instead tends to wander and waste time. How many alternative technologies were lost, or companies went under, because oil was too cheap for several decades after the 1970s? If we had followed through with a national policy that gave those technologies and companies a chance, we could have been fully prepared for this day already. More than that, we could have been exporting these new technologies to the world, instead of sending all our money overseas for a dinosaur of an energy source that has no future.

Pickens' plan is a great step in the right direction. I happen to think there are a few naive assumptions in it, but it will be much better than doing nothing (our CURRENT non-strategy). The main flaw is assuming that natural gas will continue to be abundant, and the second flaw is to fail to account for fluctuations in wind power production (at least, as far as I have examined his plan). These fluctuations become important the more wind power you use. It needs to be complemented with grid-scale energy storage solutions.

It's time to shift our thinking. We need to recognize oil for the precious, limited resource it is... there are certain things it does which we cannot feasibly replace yet. Instead of using it up as fast as possible at the cheapest market price, and then crashing our civilization when it is gone, we should be carefully managing it for both the present and the future. All possible uses of oil that can be replaced with renewables, should be replaced, as soon as we can. We need to leave some oil in the ground for future generations, for those uses for which we have no practical substitute for oil.]]> Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:04:13 -0400
People (many of the commenters above) need to get past their political biases that color their view of the world. It's a whole different world now than even just a few years ago. The laissez-faire approach will cause more chaos than a smart directed policy. I'm conservative but I see the huge problem we face and if we don't move together as a nation, with smarter policies that SHIFT US INTENTIONALLY AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS, we'll be sunk. As it is, it is already a huge enough challenge that even if we could all get on the same page today it would still be difficult to avoid massive repercussions.

If we don't buckle down and voluntarily apply some short-term pain (relatively speaking; it could still be years or even decades), then we are in for some real long-term hurt.

I like the idea of shifting taxes away from income and onto fossil fuels. Some will say this will stifle economic growth. Earth to La-La-Land! It's being stifled already and if we don't manage the situation, not only economic growth but even economic SURVIVAL will be crushed. On the flip side, taxes on income also stifle economic growth, so by shifting from income tax to fuel tax we are just moving sideways, but with beneficial side effects (getting off our crack addiction to oil).

If we had plenty of time, I'd agree that a free-market solution would be best. But there is no longer time. And the market needs direction; in the past, oil set the direction for the market; but currently no single player or technology is big enough to give direction to the market. The result is that the market doesn't commit itself to a coherent course and instead tends to wander and waste time. How many alternative technologies were lost, or companies went under, because oil was too cheap for several decades after the 1970s? If we had followed through with a national policy that gave those technologies and companies a chance, we could have been fully prepared for this day already. More than that, we could have been exporting these new technologies to the world, instead of sending all our money overseas for a dinosaur of an energy source that has no future.

Pickens' plan is a great step in the right direction. I happen to think there are a few naive assumptions in it, but it will be much better than doing nothing (our CURRENT non-strategy). The main flaw is assuming that natural gas will continue to be abundant, and the second flaw is to fail to account for fluctuations in wind power production (at least, as far as I have examined his plan). These fluctuations become important the more wind power you use. It needs to be complemented with grid-scale energy storage solutions.

It's time to shift our thinking. We need to recognize oil for the precious, limited resource it is... there are certain things it does which we cannot feasibly replace yet. Instead of using it up as fast as possible at the cheapest market price, and then crashing our civilization when it is gone, we should be carefully managing it for both the present and the future. All possible uses of oil that can be replaced with renewables, should be replaced, as soon as we can. We need to leave some oil in the ground for future generations, for those uses for which we have no practical substitute for oil.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84849-introduction-to-a-long-lecture-on-oil?source=feed#comment-205150 205150
To phinsuntanning, when you say that the sea is full of tankers, I assume you are referring to a news tidbit seized upon by people who doubt that supply is the problem and who want to pin it on speculators or some other scapegoat. The news tidbit was that there were tankers full of oil in the Persian Gulf just waiting because they could not find buyers at this price.

The only problem with that story is that these tankers were full of heavy, sour crude, which no one wants to buy because it is expensive to refine and hard to use. If it were "light, sweet" crude, it would have been snapped up in an instant. That is the stuff that is easy to refine and gives an enormous energy return on energy invested (EROEI). We will eventually be forced to use more heavy, sour crude, however, in spite of its low EROEI, because light sweet crude is becoming ever more scarce as demand for it soars.]]> Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:57:33 -0400
To phinsuntanning, when you say that the sea is full of tankers, I assume you are referring to a news tidbit seized upon by people who doubt that supply is the problem and who want to pin it on speculators or some other scapegoat. The news tidbit was that there were tankers full of oil in the Persian Gulf just waiting because they could not find buyers at this price.

The only problem with that story is that these tankers were full of heavy, sour crude, which no one wants to buy because it is expensive to refine and hard to use. If it were "light, sweet" crude, it would have been snapped up in an instant. That is the stuff that is easy to refine and gives an enormous energy return on energy invested (EROEI). We will eventually be forced to use more heavy, sour crude, however, in spite of its low EROEI, because light sweet crude is becoming ever more scarce as demand for it soars.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84792-not-just-another-bear-cycle?source=feed#comment-205007 205007 We all understand the underlying concept.

While you bicker, the bear market (no, I don't think it's just a "cycle" this time) will continue to destroy people's "wealth." The REAL currency powering the world's economy is crude oil, and the cheap, easy oil is fast disappearing. The bubble of easy credit in the monetary system was backed by the assumption of unlimited economic growth, powered by unlimited cheap oil. And now that oil is becoming more scarce, the monetary system is going through the first throes of its destruction. Not to mention our economy.

Oil may dip again to around $100... AFTER our economy is in shambles and demand is so totally destroyed that the price can fall. But oil will never again drop as low as, say $50 per barrel. Production of the cheap, easy oil that our economy is addicted to is already in decline around the world. The costs to fill the gap with new oil discoveries is skyrocketing... assuming we can even fill the gap. Again, if demand is sufficiently destroyed then the gap may not need filling, but the costs associated with extracting new oil will not go down, so the price will not drop too far. All the cheap oil is used up.

Google for "The End of Cheap Oil"... an article in the Scientific American from 1998. They predicted a peak in oil production in "about 10 years"...]]> Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:46:16 -0400 We all understand the underlying concept.

While you bicker, the bear market (no, I don't think it's just a "cycle" this time) will continue to destroy people's "wealth." The REAL currency powering the world's economy is crude oil, and the cheap, easy oil is fast disappearing. The bubble of easy credit in the monetary system was backed by the assumption of unlimited economic growth, powered by unlimited cheap oil. And now that oil is becoming more scarce, the monetary system is going through the first throes of its destruction. Not to mention our economy.

Oil may dip again to around $100... AFTER our economy is in shambles and demand is so totally destroyed that the price can fall. But oil will never again drop as low as, say $50 per barrel. Production of the cheap, easy oil that our economy is addicted to is already in decline around the world. The costs to fill the gap with new oil discoveries is skyrocketing... assuming we can even fill the gap. Again, if demand is sufficiently destroyed then the gap may not need filling, but the costs associated with extracting new oil will not go down, so the price will not drop too far. All the cheap oil is used up.

Google for "The End of Cheap Oil"... an article in the Scientific American from 1998. They predicted a peak in oil production in "about 10 years"...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/78316-oil-is-up-due-to-fundamentals-not-speculation?source=feed#comment-171416 171416
NOW is the time to start looking for alternatives, in your own life, and as a society and nation. If we have alternatives to oil, THEN THE OILMEN CAN'T EXPLOIT US! Even if you believe all the conspiracy theories, the best way to thwart their evil plots is to become LESS DEPENDENT ON OIL.

I can't emphasize enough that I believe there is a seismic shift in energy availability from traditional nonrenewable sources, going forward in the next decade or two. People can't seem to see beyond this month or this year, but all signs in the long term point to high oil prices, and eventually, if we don't move away from oil, we will see shortages and rationing. Read the "peak oil" article in Wikipedia for more details.]]> Wed, 21 May 2008 21:24:53 -0400
NOW is the time to start looking for alternatives, in your own life, and as a society and nation. If we have alternatives to oil, THEN THE OILMEN CAN'T EXPLOIT US! Even if you believe all the conspiracy theories, the best way to thwart their evil plots is to become LESS DEPENDENT ON OIL.

I can't emphasize enough that I believe there is a seismic shift in energy availability from traditional nonrenewable sources, going forward in the next decade or two. People can't seem to see beyond this month or this year, but all signs in the long term point to high oil prices, and eventually, if we don't move away from oil, we will see shortages and rationing. Read the "peak oil" article in Wikipedia for more details.]]>