Old Wizard

Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is

I can't process so much conflicting info. First we say the price of oil and coal is rising so quickly because of large increases in demand from developing countries headed by China and India, then China is planning to drill for oil off the coast of Cuba, 50 mi off our Florida coast then we say that China is quickly going to wind and solar.Citing Holland as an example of wind power is a little disengenious. They are one of the original users, long before oil was the prime driver. By the way they have long ago switched to the large turbine blade windmills, something that Cape cod hasn't been able to do, primarily because of politics and environmentalist special interest opposition

Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is

Probably true that the consumer wii pay in the end, no matter what. It has been the American way. My point is I want to keep my country American. Further the great productivity our farmers have managed to achieve came with fossil fueled tractors, sowers and reapers and the electrification of the country using mostly coal. China and India are just in the beginning of the same cycle. Why aren't they going directly to alternate energy generation if it requires the same time and investment?
Nakedjaybird since you don't quantify anything,equating the alternatives as to time to achieve a given amount of energy or the relative costs, is simply an assertion of the either /or persuasion and not the comprehensive plan that solves our most pressing economic problem.

Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is

I can't say which party will have the political will to solve our energy problem, because a real solution will be in conflict with at least one pressure group or minority constituency. Importing other people's oil and leaving ours in the ground , while we develop alternatives over ten years has the very negative effect of increasing our negative trade balance and imperiling the sovereignty of our country. That's why we must have a comprehesive plan with a heightened sense of urgency that involves more domestic oil, focused alternative energy plans where special interest obstacles are removed and conservation. Wind is probably the most viable near alternative, massive solar farms are much behind and regulatory and safety issues hamper new nuclear to come on line in less than 7years. Wind is interesting because many viable projects have been stymied for 5 years for reasons like hampering the view, restricting leisure boating, power line rt. away, local opposition, etc. For all who are interested I refer them to the Cape Wind project history at Cape Cod and the windmill farm in central New York. Last I looked the electric power generation plant on Cape Cod is oil-fired and uses 1m barrels of oil/yr. The cape wind proposed windmill farm would supply 80% of the Cape's electric power needs and has been opposed by powerful Democrats and environmental groups. The proponents have already spent over 50m in environmental studies, plans and legal fees dealing for the most part with opposing forces who have spent over 30m over the last 5years. The vast majority of the citizens are for the pproject. Oh by the way, even if it would cost 60/barrel to get oil from the shale deposits it would 1] put a ceiling on high oil prices would go,2] we would not have to import that much more oil and thereby reduce our balance of payments and 3] signal to the oil exporters that when push comes to shove that we intend to stop selling the assets of this country to a cartel who can control the price of oil while they buy us.Meanwhile we as an electorate must realize the economic threat to our way of life and stop allowing minority pressure groups and special interests to impose sub-optimum solutions. Obama may be the next president, but if we don't force a well thought-out comprehensive plan on the table before any candidate gets our vote, we deserve the result. When we went to the moon we set up Nasa to focus on that goal and spent more than even Obama has promised in today's dollars,where Gov. made initial investments in technology that industry would or could not fund on a cost-risk reward calculation. The products developed in that process were commercialized by private industry after much of the R&D was finished. To get the comprehensive solution something similar must be done. Wind generated energy is not yet competitive unless the generators are paid at retail, not wholesale prices. This might be ok for the consumer, if the distribution means exist or he gets it at no additional cost. If not, someone will have to pay the freight.

Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is

Cofident28, Even if your conclusion is correct, which is doubtful, I think that 10 years might be enough to bring substantial alternate energy into practical operation. Just taking your numbers and tranlating 2.5 million barrels of oil /day at $130/barrel to balance of trade reduction we get over 115billion/yr. If we multiply by 10 years, the number exceeds 1.1 trillion. Now let's address your numbers. The estimates for off-shore oil near california,alone is 3 billion barrels. At a rate of usage from mid-east and Venezuela @ 5 millions barrels/day, we could go almost two years without importing any oil from those places. What would that do to the price of oil? It would certainly be a boon to the balance of payments. I believe that your numbers are way too low,since you have not taken into account the oil shale deposits that could provide up to 60 tears worth of oil at 5.5 million barrels/day. Iwouldn't choose Anwar as even close to my first source of more domestic oil. Far less investment would be needed at the sites above. I'd like to understand what the total investment against a realistic timeline it would take to replace the energy of half ot barrels of oil we use today. If we look at Obama's plan, he wants to devote 30billion a year for ten years without stipulating what will be the reduction in our need for imported oil. Further, as I've said before, we need not have an either or solution but one which as quickly as possible fixes our gigantic negative cash flow problem and supplants fossil fuel. Oil from known sources is the best near term solution.while the alternatives are being introduced because no short term alternate can make the required impact needed to address the urgency of our economic and strategic problems.

Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is

The timelines you site,Dave are not what most oildrillers, not oil companies, believe. While there are these number of acres under lease, Places off-shore where large oil deposits have already been verified should be tapped first. Locations off Florida which hitherto have been off-limits, and where China is going to drill, are a case in point. As far as restriction and environmental concerns, it is interesting that we say we shoulld put alternative energy supply on a crash program, ignoring what has happened when large windmill farms have been proposed or even built only to encounter all kinds of obstacles in installing power lines for delivery to the end user. The obstacles often are generated by the same people who maintain that fossil fuels are creating global warming and ruining the environment. Look at the Cape Wind project for a text book example. Further, the texas decision to make a big commitment to wind is a good instruction mechanism. The cost of putting the power lines up was equal to or greater than the cost of the windmill farm. Massive Solar energy farms have not even started to deal with the means of getting the energy to the end user. I am a believer in getting off the foreign energy dependence situation as soon as possible for the good of all the people and think the either/or approach stands in the way of what is best for the USA.

Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is

I never saw more evidence of a person who would rather profit from a national problem than really get the facts that will lead to an energy policy that ensures the well being of this country for both the short term and long term. Dave's article talks about demand destruction as the best way to bring oil prices down and because he sees evidence of that he is selling short on oil. Given what happened over the last three days he has made a killing, especially if he only had to put up 5cents on the dollar in order to sell at the lower price. Let's get to actual facts rather than his rationale. First about a little less than half of the oil we import is from a monopoly,OPEC, which will reduce supply if demand goes down. Unless demand goes down by app. 5m barrels/day we will not fix the problem. Second, the 10 year myth is a political number not an actual figure. The oil drillers estimate that the timeline is one to six years. A case in point is the off-shore fields near Florida. The Chinese and the Russians must be stupid to come all that distance to drill in an oil field that we are rejoined from doing by Congress. Third ,no one who is a proponent of alternative energy will commit to an quantitative reduction in our oil usage, Like 3m barrels of oil/ day in x years. Politically I could say that US DEMAND DESTRUCTON through Conservation and alternate energy supply OF 5 MILLION BARREL/DAY WILL TAKE TEN YEARS. Who has the data that will refute this? In reality the threat to the USA is an economic one where we cannot afford to have a negative current account that is approaching one trillion dollars/yr and maintain any thing close to our standard of living for the vast majority of our citizens. Therefore, we must drill for oil in known domestic oil reserves as quickly as possible, Establish concrete goals for alternate energy conversion including energy transport mechanisms on a short time line like four years, Shorten the timeline for new nuclear plants to 6 yrs or less, and make sure that the large hedge funds don't manipulate the oil and gas commodity markets to make large profits like Dave is doing and like Calpers has doone in the last year.